Fashion-ology: Fashion Studies in the Postmodern Digital Era [3 ed.] 1350331872, 9781350331877

Citation preview

FASHION-OLOGY

DRESS, BODY, CULTURE Series Editor: Joanne B. Eicher, Regents’ Professor, University of Minnesota Advisory Board: Djurdja Bartlett, London College of Fashion, University of the Arts Pamela Church-Gibson, London College of Fashion, University of the Arts James Hall, University of Illinois at Chicago Vicki Karaminas, University of Technology, Sydney Gwen O’Neal, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Ted Polhemus, Curator, “Street Style” Exhibition, Victoria and Albert Museum Valerie Steele, The Museum at the Fashion Institute of Technology Lou Taylor, University of Brighton Karen Tranberg Hansen, Northwestern University Ruth Barnes, Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford Books in this provocative series seek to articulate the connections between culture and dress which is defined here in its broadest possible sense as any modification or supplement to the body. Interdisciplinary in approach, the series highlights the dialogue between identity and dress, cosmetics, coiffure and body alternations as manifested in practices as varied as plastic surgery, tattooing, and ritual scarification. The series aims, in particular, to analyze the meaning of dress in relation to popular culture and gender issues and will include works grounded in anthropology, sociology, history, art history, literature, and folklore. ISSN: 1360-466X Previously published in the Series Shaun Cole, Gay Men’s Style: Fashion, Dress and Sexuality in the 21st Century Margaret Maynard, Dressed in Time: A World View Adam Geczy and Vicki Karaminas, Gastrofashion from Haute Cuisine to Haute Couture Helen Bradley Foster, “New Raiments of Self”: African American Clothing in the Antebellum South Claudine Griggs, S/he: Changing Sex and Changing Clothes Michaele Thurgood Haynes, Dressing Up Debutantes: Pageantry and Glitz in Texas Anne Brydon and Sandra Niessen, Consuming Fashion: Adorning the Transnational Body Dani Cavallaro and Alexandra Warwick, Fashioning the Frame: Boundaries, Dress and the Body Judith Perani and Norma H. Wolff, Cloth, Dress and Art Patronage in Africa Linda B. Arthur, Religion, Dress and the Body Paul Jobling, Fashion Spreads: Word and Image in Fashion Photography Fadwa El Guindi, Veil: Modesty, Privacy and Resistance Thomas S. Abler, Hinterland Warriors and Military Dress: European Empires and Exotic Uniforms Linda Welters, Folk Dress in Europe and Anatolia: Beliefs about Protection and Fertility Kim K.P. Johnson and Sharron J. Lennon, Appearance and Power Barbara Burman, The Culture of Sewing: Gender, Consumption and Home Dressmaking Annette Lynch, Dress, Gender and Cultural Change: Asian American and African American Rites of Passage Antonia Young, Women Who Become Men: Albanian Sworn Virgins David Muggleton, Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style Nicola White, Reconstructing Italian Fashion: America and the Development of the Italian Fashion Industry Brian J. McVeigh, Wearing Ideology: The Uniformity of Self-Presentation in Japan Shaun Cole, Don We Now Our Gay Apparel: Gay Men’s Dress in the Twentieth Century Kate Ince, Orlan: Millennial Female Ali Guy, Eileen Green and Maura Banim, Through the Wardrobe: Women’s Relationships with their Clothes Linda B. Arthur, Undressing Religion: Commitment and Conversion from a Cross-Cultural Perspective William J.F. Keenan, Dressed to Impress: Looking the Part Joanne Entwistle and Elizabeth Wilson, Body Dressing Leigh Summers, Bound to Please: A History of the Victorian Corset Paul Hodkinson, Goth: Identity, Style and Subculture Leslie W. Rabine, The Global Circulation of African Fashion Michael Carter, Fashion Classics from Carlyle to Barthes

Sandra Niessen, Ann Marie Leshkowich and Carla Jones, Re-Orienting Fashion: The Globalization of Asian Dress Kim K. P. Johnson, Susan J. Torntore and Joanne B. Eicher, Fashion Foundations: Early Writings on Fashion and Dress Helen Bradley Foster and Donald Clay Johnson, Wedding Dress Across Cultures Eugenia Paulicelli, Fashion under Fascism: Beyond the Black Shirt Charlotte Suthrell, Unzipping Gender: Sex, Cross-Dressing and Culture Irene Guenther, Nazi Chic? Fashioning Women in the Third Reich Yuniya Kawamura, The Japanese Revolution in Paris Fashion Patricia Calefato, The Clothed Body Ruth Barcan, Nudity: A Cultural Anatomy Samantha Holland, Alternative Femininities: Body, Age and Identity Alexandra Palmer and Hazel Clark, Old Clothes, New Looks: Second Hand Fashion Yuniya Kawamura, Fashion-ology: An Introduction to Fashion Studies Regina A. Root, The Latin American Fashion Reader Linda Welters and Patricia A. Cunningham, Twentieth-Century American Fashion Jennifer Craik, Uniforms Exposed: From Conformity to Transgression Alison L. Goodrum, The National Fabric: Fashion, Britishness, Globalization Annette Lynch and Mitchell D. Strauss, Changing Fashion: A Critical Introduction to Trend Analysis and Meaning Catherine M. Roach, Stripping, Sex and Popular Culture Marybeth C. Stalp, Quilting: The Fabric of Everyday Life Jonathan S. Marion, Ballroom: Culture and Costume in Competitive Dance Dunja Brill, Goth Culture: Gender, Sexuality and Style Joanne Entwistle, The Aesthetic Economy of Fashion: Markets and Value in Clothing and Modelling Juanjuan Wu, Chinese Fashion: From Mao to Now Annette Lynch, Porn Chic: Exploring the Contours of Raunch Eroticism Brent Luvaas, DIY Style: Fashion, Music and Global Cultures Jianhua Zhao, The Chinese Fashion Industry: An Ethnographic Approach Eric Silverman, A Cultural History of Jewish Dress Karen Hansen and D. Soyini Madison, African Dress: Fashion, Agency, Performance Maria Mellins, Vampire Culture Lynne Hume, The Religious Life of Dress Marie Riegels Melchior amd Birgitta Svensson, Fashion and Museums: Theory and Practice Masafumi Monden, Japanese Fashion Cultures: Dress and Gender in Contemporary Japan Alfonso McClendon, Fashion and Jazz: Dress, Identity and Subcultural Improvisation Phyllis G. Tortora, Dress, Fashion and Technology: From Prehistory to the Present Barbara Brownie and Danny Graydon, The Superhero Costume: Identity and Disguise in Fact and Fiction Adam Geczy and Vicki Karaminas, Fashion’s Double: Representations of Fashion in Painting, Photography and Film Yuniya Kawamura, Sneakers: Fashion, Gender, and Subculture Heike Jenss, Fashion Studies: Research Methods, Sites and Practices Brent Luvaas, Street Style: An Ethnography of Fashion Blogging Jenny Lantz, The Trendmakers: Behind the Scenes of the Global Fashion Industry Barbara Brownie, Acts of Undressing: Politics, Eroticism, and Discarded Clothing Louise Crewe, The Geographies of Fashion: Consumption, Space, and Value Sheila Cliffe, The Social Life of Kimono: Japanese Fashion Past and Present DRESS, BODY, CULTURE: CRITICAL SOURCEBOOKS Rebecca Mitchell, Fashioning the Victorians: A Critical Sourcebook

iv

FASHION-OLOGY Fashion Studies in the Postmodern Digital Era Third Edition

Yuniya Kawamura

BLOOMSBURY VISUAL ARTS Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY VISUAL ARTS and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2023 First published in Great Britain by Berg Publishers 2005 Previous edition published 2018 This edition published by Bloomsbury Visual Arts 2023 Copyright © Yuniya Kawamura, 2023 Yuniya Kawamura has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. Cover design by Toby Way Cover image © Shana Novak/Getty Images All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kawamura, Yuniya, 1963– author. Title: Fashion-ology: fashion studies in the postmodern digital era / Yuniya Kawamura. Description: Third edition. | London; New York: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2023. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “A clear, concise introduction to the role of sociology in fashion studies. Fashion-ology traces the systems, theories and theorists that define the fashion industry’s recent past, contemporary practice and possible futures“-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022043752 | ISBN 9781350331860 (paperback) | ISBN 9781350331877 (hardback) | ISBN 9781350331884 (pdf) | ISBN 9781350331891 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Fashion. | Fashion design. | Fashion designers. | Clothing and dress--Symbolic aspects. Classification: LCC TT519 .K38 2023 | DDC 746.9/2--dc23/eng/20220916 ​ ​ LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022043752 ISBN: HB: 978-1-3503-3187-7 PB: 978-1-3503-3186-0 ePDF: 978-1-3503-3188-4 eBook: 978-1-3503-3189-1 Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.blo​omsb​ury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

In memory of my father, Yoya Kawamura

CONTENTS

List of Tables  xii Preface  xiii

1 Introduction  1 Etymology of Fashion  3 Fashion as a Concept and a Phenomenon  4 Proponents and Opponents of Fashion  6 Studies of Fashion in Social Sciences  13 Outline of the Book  17 Guide to Further Reading  18

2 Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies of Fashion  21 Classical Sociological Discourse of Fashion  22 Fashion, Modernity, and Social Mobility  26 The Origin of the Fashion Phenomenon  28 Sociological Studies of Fashion since the Mid-Twentieth Century  30 Fashion and the Sociology of Culture  33 Fashion as a Manufactured Cultural Symbol  34 Youth Subcultures in Fashion Research  38 Gender and Race in Modern and Postmodern Fashion Discourse  42 Conclusion  44 Guide to Further Reading  45

xContents

3 Fashion as an Institutionalized System: From Paris to the Mediatized World  47 Theoretical Framework of Fashion-ology  48 Fashion as a Myth Supported by the System  50 Different Approaches to Fashion Systems  53 The Beginning of the Fashion System  56 Fashion Production as Collective Activity  57 Empirical Study: The French Fashion System as a Prototype  59 The Decentralization of Fashion Geography from Paris to the World  62 Conclusion  66 Guide to Further Reading  67

4 Designers and Consumers: The Personification of Fashion  69 Designers in the Studies of Fashion  70 Designers, Creativity, and Social Structure  72 Legitimation of the Designer’s Creativity  75 The Star System of Designers  76 Hierarchy among Designers in the Fashion System  80 The Adoption and Consumption of Fashion  82 Consuming Fashion as Symbolic Strategy  87 Conclusion  90 Guide to Further Reading  90

5 The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion of Fashion  91 Diffusion Theories of Fashion  92 Gatekeepers: Making Aesthetic Judgments  96 Diffusion Strategies from Fashion Dolls to Fashion Shows  100 Fashion Propaganda through Advertising  103 Trickle-up and Trickle-across Diffusions of Fashion  105 Social Media Influencers as Gatekeepers and Disseminators  109 Conclusion  111 Guide to Further Reading  112

Contents

xi

6 The Diversification and Changing Landscapes of the Fashion Systems  113 The Four Leading Fashion Cities and Fashion Weeks  114 The Second-Tier Fashion Cities and Theme-Focused Fashion Weeks  115 Youth Subcultures as an Alternative Fashion System  123 The Metaverse as the Latest Fashion System  128 Conclusion  132 Guide to Further Reading  132

7 Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion  133 The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)  134 Ecological Sustainability  139 Social Sustainability  143 Sustainability Certification Standards for Clothing and Textiles Productions  147 Governments’ Regulations on Sustainability  150 The Evolution of Status Symbols: From Wasteful Consumption to Conscientious Consumption  152 Conclusion  153 Guide to Further Reading  154



Conclusion  155

Appendix: Practical Guide to Sociological Research in Fashion and Dress  157 Notes  163 References  165 Index  179

TABLES

6.1 Second-Tier Fashion Weeks and Cities  118 6.2 Sustainability Requirements for Copenhagen Fashion Week Participants  120 7.1 The United Nations Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)  136 7.2 Top Thirty Environmental Performance Index 2022 (EPI)  138 7.3 Top Ten Apparel Exporting Countries to the United States, and Their EPI Ranks and Scores  139 7.4 Major Clothing and Textile Certification Organizations  148

PREFACE

I am pleased to present the third edition of Fashion-ology which was first published in 2005 and revised for a second edition in 2018. For the third edition, I have changed the subtitle from An Introduction to Fashion Studies to Fashion Studies in the Postmodern Digital Era as the fashion industry continues to adapt to changing times and conditions, and it is greatly influenced by the internet, social media, and metaverse. Fashion is going through a major transition in regards to production, consumption, gatekeeping, and diffusion. I have kept the content of the second edition as much as possible, so a couple of the chapters have been transported to and incorporated into other existing chapters with appropriate subheadings and sub-subheadings, and new sections on fashion and the impact of technology are added throughout the book. Two new chapters on the diversification and changing landscapes of the fashion systems and ecological and social sustainability are added to discuss and explore the industry’s current concerns and interests. I first wrote Fashion-ology in hopes of raising people’s awareness on fashion as an academic field because fashion as a research topic never used to be popular in social science discipline. To make my point clear, I added “-ology” as a suffix to “fashion” and coined a term “ ‘fashion-ology,” which I had briefly mentioned during a casual conversation with my former advisor at Columbia University, Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson, who said that it would be an excellent book title. My message and intention were well received by the research community around the world, and as a result, the first edition was translated into Italian, Swedish, Russian, Chinese, and Turkish, and the second edition is currently being translated into Korean and again into Chinese. I believe that the third edition will also be translated into several foreign languages to reach a wider audience far beyond the English-speaking countries. I hope my readers will find the third edition as useful and helpful as the first two editions and better understand what fashion studies bring to fashion education and where the latest fashion system is heading to.

xivPreface

I am very grateful to Georgia Kennedy and her editorial team at Bloomsbury, who have always been supportive of my work and research. My gratitude also goes to Joanne Eicher and Valerie Steele, the two pioneers in the field, who are my strongest role models and mentors. New York, September 2022

1 INTRODUCTION

Fashion-ology is the study of fashion. It is neither the study of dress nor the study of clothing, which means that the two, fashion and dress/clothing, are different concepts and entities that can be or should be studied separately. Fashion-ology is a sociological investigation of fashion, and it treats fashion as a system of institutions1 that produces the concept as well as the phenomenon/practice of fashion. Similar to the sociology of art that studies the practices and institutions of artistic production (Wolff 1993: 139), Fashion-ology is also concerned with the social production process of the belief in fashion that exists in people’s minds, and which begins to have a substance and life of its own. Items of clothing must go through the process of transformation to be labeled as fashion. In the past decade since the publication of the first edition of this book, more and more fashion and dress scholars have moved beyond a mere analysis of the content of clothes and have started to analyze and investigate fashion and dress from various unique perspectives. For instance, Christopher Breward and David Gilbert edited and compiled the book Fashion’s World Cities (2006), in which the authors explored different cities in relation to the fashion industry, and their geographical focus included unlikely fashion places, such as Mumbai, Moscow, and Dakar. Agnès Rocamora in her Fashioning the City: Paris, Fashion, and the Media (2009) discussed how the reputation of Paris as a fashion capital was built through the French media, and also the challenges the city faces. Others have closely studied the methodological strategies in studying fashion and dress in the social sciences. Heike Jenss edited a book Fashion Studies: Research Methods, Sites, and Practices (2016), which includes specific empirical case studies indicating clear research strategies, such as an ethnography and a material culture approach. There are also attempts to theorize fashion in Malcolm Barnard’s Fashion Theory: An Introduction (2014) and in Marie Riegels Melchior and Birgitta Svensson’s Fashion and Museums: Theory and Practice (2014). However, there has still been an insufficient emphasis on institutional factors in the discussions of fashion production. The primary focus of this book is the social nature of fashion in its production, distribution, diffusion, reception, adoption,

2Fashion-ology

and consumption so that we can differentiate fashion production and fashion consumption from clothing production and clothing consumption. Therefore, since the process itself is the object of the study, a fashion-ological perspective of fashion requires no visual materials to explain fashion because it is not about clothing. However, it is difficult to deny the connection between fashion, which is an immaterial object, and clothing, which is a material object, because, as Brenninkmeyer (1963: 6) notes, “clothing and dress are the raw materials from which fashion is formed. Fashion as a belief is manifested through clothing.” Fashion-ology debunks the myth that the creative designer is a genius. Fashion is not created by a single individual but by everyone involved in the production of fashion, and thus fashion is a collective activity. Furthermore, a form of dress or a way of using it is not fashion or “in fashion” until it has been adopted and used by a large proportion of the people in a society. A particular style of dress has to be widely diffused and then accepted for anything to be fashion. However, the object has to be labeled as fashion before it reaches the consumption stage. It has to be recognizable as fashion. People are wearing clothes, but they believe or wish to believe that it is fashion that they are wearing and that they are consuming fashion and not clothing. That belief is born out of the socially constructed idea of fashion, which means a great deal more than mere clothing. There are multiple opinions of fashion, and we will see in subsequent chapters that opinions concerning the exact definition of fashion differ immensely. Which idea of fashion is to be accepted? For many authors, fashion first begins with clothing. The word “fashion” is mainly used to refer to clothing and styles of appearance. There are “fashions” in other aspects of intellectual and social life, and fashion exists in various spheres of our lives. It is a word that can be used in many senses, and we encounter and use the term “fashion” every day loosely and ambiguously, generally meaning “clothing fashion.” In order to understand what fashion means in a more specific sense, it is essential that we understand the difference between fashion and clothing and also integrate the two senses of fashion, that is, fashion as a concept and clothing fashion as a practice or phenomenon. Only by interpreting fashion as a concept in a broader sense do we understand what clothing fashion means in a sociological sense. Fashion is a concept that separates itself from other words that are often used as synonyms of fashion, such as clothing, garments, and apparel. Those words refer to tangible objects while fashion is an intangible object. Trying to define a particular item of clothing as fashion is futile because fashion is not a material product but a symbolic product that has no content by/in itself. This book is intended as an introduction to fashion studies for students in any social science discipline and especially for those in sociology of the arts, culture, occupations, and/or organizations. In addition, those who study fashion design and the business side of fashion, for instance merchandising

Introduction

3

and marketing, could also benefit from this book as it describes the institutional processes that designers and other fashion-related occupational groups go through. Fashion-ology involves the study of individual and institutional social networks in the world of fashion, giving a clearer picture and an understanding of how designers become famous and how their reputations are maintained and reproduced so that they continue to be the key players in fashion production. Such knowledge and information would be useful and meaningful for anyone who wishes to go into the fashion industry, which works to sustain people’s belief in fashion. Before I elaborate the structure and components of a fashion system that contributes to creating fashion as a belief, I will first examine the etymological origin of the term fashion and further discuss the concept and phenomenon of fashion. Furthermore, proponents and opponents of fashion will be investigated since fashion as an intellectual topic has been perceived as, on the one hand, too trivial and not worth spending time on and, on the other, a legitimate topic of analysis. I will then review empirical studies and discourses on fashion, dress, and clothing in social sciences such as psychology, anthropology, and history to understand how other social scientists besides sociologists2 have treated fashion as a research topic and to see how their approaches may differ from or overlap with fashion-ology, in terms of their analyses and the object of their study.

Etymology of Fashion The terms “fashion” and “clothing” tend to be used synonymously, but while fashion conveys a number of different social meanings, clothing refers to the generic raw materials of what a person wears. Fashion in English, or “la mode” in French, stands out from the other words, such as clothes, garments, attire, garb, apparel, and costume, which are often referred to in relation to fashion. According to The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988), it was probably about the year 1300 that a sense of style, fashion, and manner of dress was first recorded. The Dictionnaire de la mode au XXe siècle3 (Remaury 1996) indicates more specifically that the French word for fashion, which meant the collective manner of dressing, first appeared in 1482. The word originally comes from the word modus, which means manner in English or manière in French. As for the etymology of the English word fashion, it comes originally from the Latin facio or factio, which means making or doing (Barnard 1996; Brenninkmeyer 1963: 2). In Old French it became fazon; in Middle French facon; then façon and façonner in French led to the Middle-English word fashion, meaning “to make” or “of a particular make or shape.” By 1489, fashion had the meaning of a current usage, or a conventional usage in dress or lifestyle especially as observed in upper circles of society. The predominant social notion of fashion arose early

4Fashion-ology

in the sixteenth century via the sense of “a special manner of making clothes” (Brenninkmeyer 1963: 2). The Oxford New English Dictionary on Historical Principles published in 1901 defines the word fashion primarily as the action/process of making, a manner, a prevailing custom, the current usage or conventional usage in dress, and/or a mode of life. As “the fashion,” it is defined as the mode of dress, etiquette, furniture, and style of speech adopted in society for the time being. As synonyms of the word fashion, words such as mode, style, vogue, trend, look, taste, fad, rage, and craze are mentioned, although there are slight differences in their meanings. “Style” is sometimes the equivalent of fashion but also denotes conformity to a prevalent standard while “vogue” suggests the temporary popularity of a certain fashion. Therefore, it seems agreed that fashion is never stationary, never fixed, and ever changing. Barnard’s study (1996) on fashion and clothing is one of the few studies that brings the two terms side by side trying to differentiate one from the other. Barnard makes an attempt to distinguish clothing from fashion and observes respective definitions, functions, and meanings, but often treats the two simultaneously. “Fashion” and “dress” are used interchangeably because fashion is associated primarily with dress. Brenninkmeyer (1963: 5) also defines the words mode, clothing, dress, costume, custom, and style among others: Mode is a synonym of fashion; “clothing” originates from “cloth” meaning a piece of woven or felted material made of wool, hair, or cotton, suitable for wrapping or wearing, and in 1823, “clothing” meant the distinctive dress worn by members of any profession. “Dress” comes from the Middle French dresser, which means to arrange and, in general, it refers to the principal outer garments worn by women or the visible part of clothing. “Costume” means mode of personal attire or dress belonging to a nation, class, or period. As fashion has many interrelated aspects with these concepts (Brenninkmeyer 1963), it becomes impossible to demystify fashion as long as the focus is on the material objects.

Fashion as a Concept and a Phenomenon What exactly is fashion? It is difficult to give an exact definition of fashion because the word has had different connotations throughout history; the meaning and significance of the word have changed to suit the social customs and clothing habits of people in different social structures. When fashion is treated as an item of clothing that has added value in a material sense, it confuses the notion of fashion. Fashion does provide an extra value to clothing, but the additional elements exist only in people’s imaginations and beliefs. Fashion is not visual clothing but is composed of the invisible elements included in clothing. Brenninkmeyer (1963: 4) defines fashion as a prevailing usage of dress adopted

Introduction

5

in society for the time being. It is the result of the acceptance of certain cultural values, all of which are open to relatively rapid influences of change. Fashion as a concept means something more than the terms that have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, because it signifies additional and alluring values attached to clothing, which are enticing to consumers of fashion. Finkelstein (1996) accurately points out that consumers imagine they are acquiring these added values when they are purchasing “fashionable” items. Similarly, Bell (1947 [1976]) argues persuasively that fashion is the essential virtue in a garment without which its intrinsic values can hardly be perceived; fashion encompasses the value added to clothing. However, these writers do not determine what precisely these values are. For instance, Paris as a brand is definitely one of the values, but scholars neglect to provide evidence as to how that value was produced. In subsequent chapters, I will discuss the institutionalization process of fashion and the making of a fashion system and fashion culture using Paris, the epitome of fashion, as an empirical case study. As the concept of fashion changed historically so did the phenomenon of fashion. The concept would not exist if the phenomenon did not exist. Fashion in the fifteenth century is something quite different from fashion in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In the fifteenth century, fashion was an indicator of class status, a court privilege, practically monopolized by the aristocracy, while the commoners would hardly have dared to call themselves fashionable; in the nineteenth century, social life had changed greatly (Boucher “1967”/1987; Perrot 1994; Roche 1994). No longer did the aristocracy alone lead fashion, but the wealthy who had the material means were also slowly invading into their social place (Perrot 1994; Sombart 1902 [1967). In the twentieth century, fashion became increasingly democratic, and everyone, regardless of rank or status, had a right to look fashionable. No matter which time period in history one is talking about, the definite essence of fashion is change. The fashion process explains the diversity and change of styles. Polhemus (1994, 1996) emphasizes the association of fashion with an ideology of social change and a situation in which change is also possible and desirable. In some societies where the dominant ideology is antipathetic to social change and progress, fashion cannot exist. Why does fashion change? One simplistic common view today is that fashion is the result of a conspiracy on the part of makers of clothes to make us spend more money, and that it is designers, clothing manufacturers, and businesspeople who impose new fashions in order to stimulate the market and increase their trade. This may be an economic explanation but not a sociological one. The building of fashion cultures does not depend on the amount of money that consumers spend on clothing. I argue that a fashion system supports stylistic changes in fashion. The system provides the means whereby fashion change continually takes place.

6Fashion-ology

Another fundamental element of fashion is believed to be ambivalence (Davis 1992; Flugel 1930). According to Flugel (1930), people’s attitudes to dress have always been ambivalent, and there is the principal confrontation between emphasis on adornment on the one hand and modesty or respectability on the other. Indeed, dress attempts to balance two contradictory aims: it focuses our attractions and at the same time protects our modesty. Koenig (1973) talks about the ambiguousness of public opinion concerning fashion, the ambivalent attitude to dress, and an ambivalence of attitude in the positive or negative valuation of “consumption.” Davis (1992) has also explained the ambivalent nature of fashion. Novelty is also included as a crucial part of fashion, and it is highly valued in fashion. Koenig refers to ardent fashion followers as “neophilia” (1973: 77) stating that humankind’s receptiveness for anything new is, among many other aspects, in some way essential to fashion-oriented behavior (76). Similarly, Barthes correlates fashion with newness as follows: Fashion doubtless belongs to all the phenomena of neomania which probably appeared in our civilization with the birth of capitalism: in an entirely institutional manner, the new is a purchased value. But in our society, what is new in Fashion seems to have a well-defined anthropological function, one which derives from its ambiguity: simultaneously unpredictable and systematic, regular and unknown. (1967: 300) On the other hand, Laver (1969) popularized the theory of an erogenous zone drawn from psychoanalysis, and he explained that fashion rests on a supposed need for novelty to shift the erogenous zone so that different parts of the female body are emphasized by the changes in style. This view does not describe what happens as a result of fashion changes, but for Laver, it becomes an explanation of the system of fashion itself, which is very different from my employment of the term. As Koenig (1973: 76) indicates, although the contents of fashion are always a manifestation of their epoch, fashion’s structural form as a special kind of controlled behavior incorporates certain constants that decide, initially, what fashion is. Change and novelty are two of the characteristics that fashion encompasses. Fashion-ology makes an attempt to explain how institutions encourage and control these changes in style on a regular basis, which simultaneously creates novelty. The contents of fashion, that is clothing, are constantly changing, but fashion as a form always remains in fashion cities.

Proponents and Opponents of Fashion The study of fashion is of recent origin. Before fashion became a legitimate research topic for scholars, including social scientists, it was the topic often

Introduction

7

taken up by philosophers and moralists in the first half of the nineteenth century, and moral criticism and the criticism of fashion always went hand in hand (Koenig 1973: 31). In the early stages, there were those who were vehemently against fashion, while there were others who supported it. Dress had also been the despair of the political economists and the administrators. Fashion was the privilege of the upper class of society, and the rest of the population wore the local costume, which was practically static: changing so slowly that it was hardly noticeable. Fashions were condemned because of their extravagances, and when they were worn by the wrong people, proper distinctions of rank were obliterated (Bell 1947 [1976]: 23). However, interest in fashion as a topic was aroused as fashion changes were taking place more and more rapidly. These rapid changes occurred as nineteenthcentury industrialization resulted in the development of means for producing new fashion quickly and inexpensively. The social structure of the Western world underwent a great change in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: the population increased, productivity soared, money economy developed due to the growing division of labor, technology improved, commerce expanded, and social mobility became possible. Without these factors, widespread fashion among the population as a whole would not have been possible, and as the fashion phenomenon became more democratized, it changed people’s views on fashion.

Fashion as a Subject of Intellectual Discussion Among European philosophers, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1780) was an opponent of luxury. In Discours sur les sciences et les arts (Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts) (1750) he elaborates on the theory that art acts as a negative force on manners and thought. For him, fashion destroys virtue and masks vice. He says that the dissolution of morals and the necessary consequence of luxury bring about the corruption of taste. He became an outspoken critic of high society and its arts and sciences to the extent that they contributed to a world of luxury and hypocrisy repulsive to him. He was an advocate of simple living. In 1831, the English writer Thomas Carlyle published Sartor Resartus (The Tailor Re-Tailored) and wrote about the philosophy of clothes. Especially in those days, clothes were not yet considered a subject of earnest study, and they belonged to the sphere of the frivolous and the feminine, not worthy of serious consideration, only spoken only in learned circles to be derided and condemned for their extravagance and a lack of morality. On the other hand, the French writer Honoré de Balzac (1799–1850) personally experienced the importance of the smallest nuances of behavior and

8Fashion-ology

ornament—for instance, the way a cravat was tied, how shoes were polished, the type of cigar smoked, or how a cane was held—and understood how they were regarded with utmost seriousness by bourgeois consumers. All these subtle details of style were interpreted as significant markers of social standing (Williams 1982: 52). Similarly, the French poet Charles Baudelaire (1821–1867) explored intellectually the distinctions between art and fashion, contemporary women and their fashion displays and the “dandy.” Baudelaire talked of the pleasures of seeing a beautiful woman in contemporary costume rather than the ideal nude. Another French poet, Stéphane Mallarmé (1842–1898), was also a supporter of fashion, and he became the editor of a fashion journal titled La Dernière Mode (The Latest Fashion), which included commentary on clothing, fashion, and travel. However, fashion and/or clothing as a research topic have never been popular in social science disciplines. Almost all writers of fashion mention the academic devaluation of fashion as a topic in their introductory chapter before they begin. I am not an exception. Niessen and Brydon remark: Fashion and clothing have for a long while remained scholarly unmentionables. The unwillingness of social analysts to recognize the power of how people— of how they themselves—clothe, decorate, inscribe, perform and otherwise gesture with their bodies and avoidances … Only recently, as some of the conventional barriers of academe crumble, have fashion and clothing matters been more incisively pursued and more credibly received. (1998: ix–x) Similarly, Lipovetsky also explains why fashion as a topic is looked down upon in the academic field: The question of fashion is not a fashionable one among intellectuals … Fashion is celebrated in museums, but among serious intellectual preoccupations it has marginal status. It turns up everywhere on the street, in industry, and in the media, but it has virtually no place in the theoretical inquiries of our thinkers. Seen as an ontologically and socially inferior domain, it is unproblematic and undeserving of investigation; seen as a superficial issue, it discourages conceptual approaches. (1994: 3–4) Even professional writers of fashion find it difficult to explain what exactly fashion is. The history of dress is often seen as an area impervious to reason and analysis (Ribeiro 1995: 3). Wilson points out the complexity of explaining fashion: Writings on fashion, other than purely descriptive, have found it hard to pin down the elusive double bluffs, the infinite regress in the mirror of the meanings of fashion. Sometimes fashion is explained in terms of an often over-simplified

Introduction

9

social history; sometimes it is explained in psychological terms; sometimes in terms of the economy. Reliance on one theoretical slant can easily lead to simplistic explanations that leave us still unsatisfied. (1985: 10) Niessen and Brydon explain the development of studies of dress and fashion as follows: Earlier writings within a positivist tradition by social psychologists, clothing and art historians, folklorists and sociologists have been expanded upon as theoretical advances reveal interconnections between material culture and social forms. Social analyses uniformly condemned fashion. Feminists critiqued the sexual politics and gender oppression inhering in clothing which hobble and confine women. Marxists critiqued the fetishism of fashion and the ideology of conspicuous consumption. Psychologists treated fashion adherence as pathology. However, slowly in the 50’s and 60’s diverse writers4 were able to give theoretical weight to those people who understand their own thoughts and actions in relation to body decoration. (1998: x–xi)

The Feminization of Fashion A major reason why fashion as a social phenomenon has been treated as futile is because the phenomenon is linked with outward appearance and women. Fashion is conceived as irrational because it changes constantly, has no content, works as an external decoration, and carries no intellectual elements. Early theorists of fashion (Simmel 1904 [1957]; Veblen 1899 [1957]) related the concept of fashion to the social position of women. Women were increasingly constructed as a spectacle, even as they remained culturally invisible. Some argued that fashion gave women a compensation for their lack of position in a class-based social structure (Simmel 1904 [1957]; Veblen 1899 [1957]). Wives and daughters increasingly became vehicles of vicarious display; the wealth and prestige of the bourgeois male was displayed in the elegance of his wife and daughters, who took on the endlessly demanding idle work of being “ladies” (Veblen 1899 [1957]). Fashion was not always a gendered phenomenon, and both men and women clothed themselves with elaborate costumes until the eighteenth century. Costume historians argue that in elite circles prior to the nineteenth century, gender distinctions in dress were not nearly as strongly marked as they have become ever since. Men and women of the aristocracy and of the upper bourgeoisie who emulated it favored abundant displays of lace, rich velvets, and fine silks; wore highly ornamented footwear, coiffures, wigs, and hats of rococo embellishment; and lavishly used scented powders, rouges, and other cosmetics

10Fashion-ology

(Davis 1992). A pink silk suit, gold and silver embroidery, and jewelry were regarded as perfectly masculine (Steele 1988). Dress was the signifier of class. The more elaborate the dress, the higher its wearer’s apparent social status. In short, fashion was not only a woman’s affair. Fashion became feminized in the nineteenth century (Hunt 1996), and the representation of gender difference in dress became stronger than that of social class. Along with the feminization of fashion, modernity is also characterized by a very distinct change in masculine identity. At the end of the eighteenth century, the bourgeois male underwent what has been called “the great masculine renunciation,” which Flugel describes as “the most remarkable event in the whole history of dress” (1930: 111). Men gave up their right to all the brighter, gayer, and more varied forms of ornamentation, leaving these entirely to the use of women. Elite men abandoned their claim to be beautiful and aimed at being only useful. In today’s postindustrial societies, the meanings of items of masculine clothing differ in various contexts, such as business and leisure settings, since men are more closely identified with the occupational sphere than women. Crane (2000) argues that today there is an age segmentation of the clothing behavior of men while women are categorized as one, and she continues to explain that in our contemporary age-graded culture, the postmodern construction of nonoccupational identities through clothing appears most strongly among the young and among racial and sexual minorities, whose members view themselves as marginal or exceptional in relation to the dominant culture.5 Although we see that designer fashion for men attempts to extend the boundaries of acceptable forms of sexual expression for men, there is a gender division between female fashion and male fashion. Female fashion constitutes novelty and change, two important characteristics of fashion; the male population dresses conservatively in the workplace, although leisure clothing seems to be gradually replacing traditional business clothing, as in the “business casual” dress code, in force in many firms. Traditional male clothing styles have remained static—a characteristic that has little space in the realm of fashion. Therefore, while men tend to be defined by their occupation, women’s social roles are often discussed within the framework of women’s interests in fashion and their supposed obsession with beauty.

Female Opponents of Fashion Feminist scholars and writers were very much against fashion or fashionable individuals. As early as the late eighteenth century, Mary Wollstonecraft believed that too great an interest in self-adornment implies a diminution of the intellect and a mind disposed to frivolity (Ribeiro 1995: 3) and wrote: “The air of fashion is but a badge of slavery … which many young people are so eager to attain,

Introduction

11

always strikes me like the studied attitudes of some modern prints, copied with tasteless servility after the antique; the soul is left out, and none of the parts are tied together by what may properly be termed character” (Wollstonecraft 1792: 220). Finkelstein explains how fashion is perceived from a feminist’s point of view: Feminist readings of fashion have often portrayed it as a kind of conspiracy to distract women from the real affairs of society, namely economics and politics. Fashion has been seen as a device for confining women to an inferior social order, largely because it demands an unequal expenditure of time and money by women on activities which do not attract the professional attention and efforts of men. Fashion works to intensify self-absorption and thereby reduces the social, cultural and intellectual horizons of women. (1996: 56) Thus, for contemporary feminists, the relationship between female liberation and female beauty, including women’s concern about appearance, is crucial (Brownmiller 1984; Tseelon 1995). Personal appearance defines the woman’s social position and also influences the way she comes to think of herself. The feminist debate about dress and attitudes toward personal adornment indicates that fashionable dress tends to be construed as part of the oppression of women. To care about dress and physical appearance is oppressive, and women’s love of clothes is a form of “false consciousness”6 (Tseelon 1995). The dominant feminist perspective on fashion or beauty is that fashion emerges out of the desire to be beautiful, the norm for which is created by men in a male-dominated society. Devotion to fashion in dress was adduced as a natural weakness of women, something they could not help. This view was strengthened in the nineteenth century when masculine and feminine clothing became much more different in fabric, trim, and construction. Elegant men’s clothing during this time was actually no less complex, demanding, and uncomfortable, but it tended to be more subdued and abstract in the way it looked. Women’s clothing was extremely expressive and very deliberately decorative and noticeable (Hollander 1980: 360). Therefore, as Wilson indicates: Fashion has been a source of concern to feminists, both today and in an earlier period. Feminist theory is the theorization of gender, and in almost all known societies the gender division assigns to women a subordinate position. Within feminism, fashionable dress and the beautification of the self are conventionally perceived as expressions of subordination; fashion and cosmetics fixing women visibly in their oppression. (1985: 13) Craik (1994: 44) points out that Western fashion became preoccupied with techniques of femininity; the women strived to achieve feminine qualities and

12Fashion-ology

traits from the eighteenth century, and she refers to techniques of dress and decoration as fashion systems that manifest techniques of gender that are specific to any cultural formation. This phenomenon is probably almost universal and not confined to the Western world.

Female Proponents of Fashion In contrast to the views outlined in the previous section, one can look at the link between women and fashion positively in the postmodern interpretation where the breakdown of identity is found, and fashion plays no role in the oppression of women. As Wilson persuasively explains: In “denaturalizing the wearer’s spectacular identity” contemporary fashion refuses the dichotomy nature/culture. Fashion in our epoch denaturalizes the body and thus divests itself of all essentialism. This must be good news for women since essentialism ideologies have been oppressive to them. Fashion often plays with, and playfully transgresses gender boundaries, inverting stereotypes and making us aware of the masque of femininity. (1994: 187) Using fashion as a tool, women shift from nature to culture. Focusing on beauty and fashion is feminist insofar as it is a source of power and controlled by women themselves. It is male control over it giving women no autonomy that becomes problematic. The conflict between fashion and feminism is an unresolved, ongoing issue that requires further in-depth research. Moreover, we need to detach our views from a gendered perspective of fashion because it is limited in understanding fashion as a sociological concept. It is necessary to bring fashion to a much larger spectrum of a social system and ask why it exists in that particular system. The feminization of fashion was tied to the decline of European aristocracy and the corresponding ascendancy of the bourgeoisie, a movement that, though much accelerated by the French Revolution, was well underway before 1789 (Hunt 1996). Protestant-oriented values of hard work, sobriety, frugality, and personal economic advancement figured prominently in the structural transformation of European society (Weber 1947). Perhaps it was essentially the desire of the bourgeoisie to reflect these moral attitudes in what they wore that accounted for men and women coming to dress so distinctively (Davis 1992). Therefore, in order to analyze fashion or clothing fashion as a sociological topic, we must place it in a social context along with social change. Lipovetsky (1994) postulates that the study of fashion needs new impetus and renewed questioning, because fashion is a trifling, fleeting, and “contradictory” object par excellence. For that very reason it ought to provide a good stimulus for a theoretical argument. Fashion may be socially frivolous, but

Introduction

13

it is not sociologically trivial. Fashion is the result of a great deal of influence that collectively determines the social structure of society. Before discussing sociological studies of fashion in the next chapter, let us first examine different studies of fashion in other areas of social science, such as psychology, social psychology, history, art history, cultural anthropology, and economics.

Studies of Fashion in Social Sciences Before elaborating on the concept of fashion as a system, I investigate studies of fashion in the social science discipline and research methods they have utilized to analyze fashion and/or clothing. Fashion, however conceived, is extremely difficult to measure and research unless the units of analysis are accurately determined. According to (Roach-Higgins and Eicher 1973: 26–7), social scientists have begun to take an interest in dress and fashion only recently. In the late 1920s and the 1930s came an upsurge of interest in publications on the psychological, social, and cultural implications of dress, and this interest no doubt was associated with general sharp breaks with tradition at that time, symbolized so well in the dress of women7 (29–30). Fashion gradually became a concern for sociologists and psychologists who were interested in studying the motives stimulating individual and group behaviors, including clothing behavior. As early as 1876, Herbert Spencer, a sociologist, examined the role played by fashion in the society of his time. He lived in a changing social structure and saw fashion as a part of social evolution. In 1904, Simmel, an expert in seeing the dualistic side of social phenomena, saw fashion as the desire for imitation and differentiation, and many other sociologists and social scientists (Sumner 1906 [1940]; Tarde 1903; Toennies 1887 [1963]; Veblen 1899 [1957]) shared his view. Sociological discourse and empirical studies of fashion will be discussed thoroughly in the next chapter. While sociologists sought the motives governing fashion in group behavior, authors with a psychological approach, on the other hand, often based their arguments on one instinct as being responsible for fashion phenomena. Psychologists are concerned with the basic concepts of motivation, learning, and perception, and they argue that much of their clothing behavior is psychological in nature. By using psychology as a framework for study, clothing can be seen as an intimate part of the personality or self (Horn and Gurel 1975: 2). Hurlock explains how close clothes can be to our bodies: “We are apt to think of clothes as we do of our bodies, and so to appropriate them that they become perhaps more than any of our other possessions, a part of ourselves … in spite of the constant changes in clothing, it is still impossible to disassociate ourselves from this intimate part of our material possessions” (1929: 44).

14Fashion-ology

If psychology is the study of individual behavior and sociology is the study of group behavior, subject matter that falls within the overlapping areas between these two disciplines constitutes a third field of study, social psychology. Ross (1908) in his study discusses the contagions of collective behavior that result in group action. Ryan (1966) attempts to coordinate findings based on many different theoretical premises and classes them according to their general social psychological significance. Horn and Gurel explain: On the basis of social psychological research, as well as on the points of agreement found in some early writings concerning the interpretation of clothing behavior, we see that clothing is a symbol of crucial importance to the individual. As a nonverbal language, it communicates to others an impression of social status, occupation, role, self-confidence, intelligence, conformity, individuality, and other personality characteristics. (1975: 2) Barnard takes a similar approach to fashion and clothing as communication: The things people wear are significant or meaningful, and it has attempted to explain what sort of meanings, like fashion and clothing may have, how those meanings are produced or generated, and how fashion and clothing communicate those meanings … meaning, like fashions, were not static or fixed … even the use of the term “fashion” was not static or fixed, that it was a product of the context in which it appeared and that an item could function as fashion at one moment and as clothing, or antifashion, at another. (1996: 171) On the other hand, Langner (1959) refers to Adler’s refinements on psychoanalytic theory, notably to the concepts of inferiority and superiority as being explanatory of dress. Traditionally, the study of fashion and/or clothing has been a brand of art history and has followed its methods of attention to detail. Comparable to the study of furniture, painting, and ceramics, a major part of its project has been the accurate dating of costume, assignment in some cases of “authorship,” and an understanding of the actual process of the making of the garment, all of which are valid activities (Wilson 1985: 48). Historians and art historians (Boucher 1967 [1987]; Davenport 1952; Hollander 1993, 1994; Steele 1985, 1988, 1991) look at clothing and dress over extended periods, and they explain repeated regularities and fluctuation and decode the cultural meanings of dress and clothing. This is a very difficult task since there is little data beyond 150 years; there is no exact knowledge before the year 1800 (Roach-Higgins and Eicher 1973). From then, we can find abundant information due to the early fashion magazines, fashion plates, and the fashion dolls that were sent primarily from Paris to different parts of the world.

Introduction

15

Cultural anthropologists make cross-cultural comparisons between traditional, nonindustrialized societies in terms of dress. Their studies help us understand that using clothing to express modesty is a function that is determined by the culture, learned by the individuals, and is not instinctive in nature. People cover or decorate their bodies for a variety of reasons, and modesty is one of them. Other reasons include protection, the desire to be sexually attractive, and for adornment. Some scholars, such as Sombart (1902 [1967]), Nystrom (1928), and Anspach (1967), approach fashion from an economic point of view. Sombart saw the connection between fashion and economics and remarked: “Fashion is capitalism’s favourite child” (1902 [1967]). He denied any part that the consumer plays in creating fashion, and he stressed that it is the producer who shapes fashion, while the consumer accepts what is offered to them. Nystrom (1928) examines the cause of fashion, the fashion cycle, trends in fashion, and fashion prediction, while Anspach (1967) emphasizes clothing as a commodity. We can see that the unit of analysis in almost all studies of fashion is clothes and dress, and no scholars clearly distinguish fashion from clothing or vice versa. This is what Fashion-ology attempts to do.

The Use of Visual Materials as Evidence Different types of visual records have been used to research dress and fashion. Writers of fashion, especially art historians, who examine fashion from the wearer’s point of view, look specifically at the actual garments. As part of visual culture, fashion is frequently being studied through illustrations, paintings, and photographs. Fashion historians (Steele 1985; Hollander 1993) use historical materials, such as periodicals, store catalogues, advertisements, pamphlets, and paintings, among others, as evidence to investigate how people dressed and what people wore hundreds and thousands of years ago. Roach-Higgins and Eicher explain how dress has been recorded in many different forms in the past: Sculpture, paintings and ceramics … provided visual representations from very ancient times. Pictorial textiles and printed plates showing dress, as well as actual costume artifacts, are available from about the sixteenth century … Costume histories summarize data from many of these sources. Modern costume histories are made more exact through the use of photographs of actual objects, often in color … While contemporary items of dress are readily available, artifacts are limited, and many are destroyed and have deteriorated. Costume plates and fashion plates were also used. (1973: 11–17)

16Fashion-ology

For visual information from before the second half of the nineteenth century, the works of painters—including the earliest cave people who practiced their art on the walls of their caves as well as their numerous descendants who have recorded their impressions of human appearance on various surfaces—and those of sculptors who have modeled recognizable human forms from clay, wood, ivory, and rough chunks of stone have been used (Roach-Higgins and Eicher 1973: 6–8; Taylor 2002). Although it is difficult to rely solely on written documents, they could also be used as supplementary material in the studies of fashion and dress. Since artists may deviate from exact visual representations the accuracy of their pictures needs to be determined by other available data. One way to check is to refer to written descriptions and commentaries of the dressing style of the same period in history, such as personal diaries, accounts of travel and exploration, catalogues, biographies, novels, memoirs, essays, satires, books of history and philosophy, and manuals on etiquette and personal conduct (Taylor 2002); religious writings can also be rich sources of information on dress, although they may be written for other purposes and have nothing to do with fashion per se. These written forms of evidence can provide information to help validate the authenticity of visual representations and to elucidate the meaning of dress within its contemporary setting, although they, too, may be subject to bias (Roach-Higgins and Eicher 1973: 15).

Quantitative Methods In opposition to the qualitative methods discussed in the previous section, some scholars have made an attempt to measure garments that appeared in various magazines although this is not a common way to study clothing and fashion. One of the earliest quantitative studies of fashion was conducted by an American anthropologist, Kroeber (1919). He studied the fashion process and cycles by presenting a series of measurements of fashion changes over a specific time period and taking measurements from fashion magazines and journals between 1844 and 1919. He took eight measurements, four of which were the lengths and four of which were the widths of a dress. He focused on women’s formal silk evening dresses because these have served the same definite occasions for more than a century, according to Kroeber. The absolute numbers were converted into percentage ratios to the length of the entire figure as it has been defined. Then the percentage for each measure was averaged for each year. Kroeber came to the conclusion that the details of fashion change more often than the general fashion trend. Similarly, Young (1939 [1966]) obtained data from fashion magazines and made a quantitative analysis. Her central argument is that fashion change is essentially cyclical and is independent of historical events, epochs of thought,

Introduction

17

ideals, or artistic periods. She gives a continuous annual series of illustrations of the most “typical” costumes worn from 1760 through 1937. In order to select the typical fashion of a particular year, she chooses from fashion magazines of that year fifty illustrations of daytime, street dresses. These are then sorted over and tabulated to determine the type of skirt that appeared the largest number of times. The process is then repeated to select the most favored type of collar, sleeve, waist, and belt. The result is a number of “typical” components, each representing a different part of the costume of that year. A single illustration combining all of them is considered an “annual typical.” However, this definition of “annual typical” and who determined the typical styles of the season must be questioned. Treating one particular style as the standard style of a specific time frame is not possible, especially in a contemporary postmodern view of society where the source of fashion is being decentralized (Crane 2000). Kroeber (1919) and Young (1939 [1966]) took the measurements of garments to investigate regularities in social change, but I question the accuracy and significance of taking these measurements which are varied and subtle. If researchers need to pay attention to the intrinsic nature, quality, and measurements of clothes and wish to work with real garments, I urge them to examine the technical production process as I did in a recent study (Kawamura 2004). Quantitative methods require analytic scrutiny, exact measuring, careful recording, and judgment on the basis of an observed fact, and this is difficult to attain when the unit of analysis is the garment itself.

Outline of the Book Chapter 1 has been an introductory chapter outlining the main theme of the book and explaining why fashion and clothing can be studied separately. Studies of fashion in social sciences and research methodologies have been briefly discussed. It has also explained why fashion as an intellectual topic is often considered trivial and frivolous while there are strong proponents of fashion. Chapter 2 examines classical and contemporary sociological discourse as well as empirical studies of fashion and places fashion within the study of sociology of culture by treating fashion as a manufactured cultural symbol. Chapters 1 and 2 lay the foundation for the future discussion of Fashion-ology. The theoretical underpinnings of Fashion-ology are found in Chapter 3, and a distinct approach to fashion as an institutionalized system is elaborated while I examine various studies of fashion systems to show how my employment of the term “fashion system” overlaps with and/or differs from others. An empirical study of the fashion system in Paris will be briefly explained. Chapters 4 and 5 include discussions on the individuals and institutions in the fashion system who help maintain the ideology of fashion that is supported by

18Fashion-ology

the system. Designers and consumer influencers, who are the major players in the system, personify the concept of fashion while journalists, editors, advertisers, bloggers, street photographers, and Instagrammers contribute to the production, gatekeeping, and dissemination of fashion. I examine the role that consumers play in fashion adoption and the way they use fashion as a symbolic strategy, and it also explains how consumers today are becoming producers, and thus the boundary between the consumption and production of fashion is disappearing. Chapters 6 and 7 have been rewritten and added as two new chapters in this third edition. Chapter 6 discusses the diversification and changing landscape of fashion systems since the publication of the first and second editions of Fashion-ology (Bloomsbury 2005, 2018). The leading four fashion cities are no longer the only cities that produce fashion, but there are biannual Fashion Weeks around the world in addition to theme-based as well as metaverse fashion shows taking place in the virtual space where clothing is no longer tangible. Chapter 7 explores the issues and concerns for ecological and social sustainability in the fashion and textile industries and investigates how various institutions, such as the United Nations, governments, companies, and consumers are involved in making the fashion industry more eco-friendly and the strategies that they are taking to make the world greener. Throughout the third edition, there are discussions on the advent and impact of technology in the past and the use of various social media tools in the twenty-first century. Chapter 8 is the conclusion of the book. In the Appendix, a concise overview of key considerations for carrying out research in fashion and dress using sociological methods primarily drawn from the first and second editions of my book Doing Research in Fashion and Dress: An Introduction to Qualitative Methods (Bloomsbury 2011, 2020) is provided for students with no prior research experience.

Guide to Further Reading Barnard, Malcolm (1996), Fashion as Communications, London: Routledge. Craig, Jennifer (2009), Fashion: The Key Concepts, London: Bloomsbury. Edwards, Tim (2011), Fashion in Focus: Concepts, Practices and Politics, London: Routledge. Eicher, Joanne, and Sandra Lee Evenson (eds.) (2014), The Visible Self: Global Perspectives on Dress, Culture and Society, New York: Fairchild Books. Jenss, Heike (ed.) (2016), Fashion Studies: Research Methods, Sites, and Practices, London: Bloomsbury. Reilly, Andrew (2014), Key Concepts for the Fashion Industry, London: Bloomsbury. Roach-Higgins, Mary Ellen, and Joanne Eicher (1973), The Visible Self: Perspectives on Dress, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Introduction

19

Ryan, Mary S. (1966), Clothing: A Study in Human Behavior, New York: Holt, Rinehard & Winston. Sikarskie, Amanda (ed.) (2022), Storytelling in Luxury Fashion: Brands, Visual Cultures, and Technologies, London: Routledge. Skove, Lise, and Marie Riegels Melchior (2008), Research Approaches to Study of Dress and Fashion, Creative Encounters Working Paper #19.

20

2 SOCIOLOGICAL DISCOURSE AND EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF FASHION

This chapter investigates how earlier and contemporary sociologists discuss fashion within a larger theoretical framework of culture and society. I identify the reasons and the need for sociologists to conduct research on fashion despite its academic devaluation explained in the previous chapter. The review of classical and contemporary discourse and empirical studies on fashion provides readers with the bases for understanding and acknowledging fashion as a significant scholarly and sociological theme. These discussions, in addition to the literature about the arts and artists (Becker 1982; Bourdieu 1984; White and White 1965 [1993]; Wolff 1983, 1993; Zolberg 1990), serve as the foundation for Fashionology. I will also place fashion within the study of the sociology of culture and treat fashion as a manufactured cultural symbol. The classical discourse of fashion is categorized according to the writers’ theoretical approaches, which involve overlapping concerns though the emphases differ. While they all relate fashion to the concept of imitation, some treat it as a sign of a democratic society and others use it as an expression of class distinction. Although none of the classical writers use the term “trickle-down theory,” their basic premise is that the fashions are supposed to trickle down from the higher classes to the lower classes. Many contemporary writers oppose the view, and they argue that fashion is not a product of class differentiation and emulation but a response to a wish to be up to date and to express new tastes that are emerging in a changing world (Blumer 1969a). Fashion implies a certain fluidity of the social structure of the community, and it requires a particular type of society, that is, the modern world, where the social

22Fashion-ology

stratification system is open and flexible. There must be differences of social position, but it must seem possible and desirable to bridge these differences. Therefore, fashion is not possible in a rigid hierarchy.

Classical Sociological Discourse of Fashion Classical sociologists at the turn of the twentieth century (Simmel 1904 [1957]; Spencer 1896 [1966]; Sumner 1906 [1940]; Summer and Keller 1927; Tarde 1903; Toennies 1887 [1963]; Veblen 1899 [1957]) theorize and conceptualize the notion of fashion, and they show us the sociological importance and perspective of fashion.

Fashion as Imitation What earlier sociologists share in the discussion of fashion is the concept of imitation. It is a relational concept that is necessarily a social relationship and, therefore, of sociological significance. These sociologists explain how fashion, which is a process of imitation, is included in understanding culture and society. Imitation, which is the basis of making an analysis of fashion, is typically a view from above since it assumes that social inferiors envy superiors and engage in imitative activities to emulate their “betters” in order to gain recognition and even entry into the privileged group (Hunt 1996). For Spencer, fashion is intrinsically imitative: “Imitative, then, from the beginning, first of a superior’s defects, and then, little by little, of other traits peculiar to him, fashion has ever tended toward equalization. Serving to obscure, and eventually to obliterate, the marks of class distinction, it has favored the growth of individuality” (1897 [1966]: 205–6). He posits two types of imitations: reverential and competitive. Reverential imitation is prompted by reverence for the one imitated. For instance, any modification of dress adopted by a king is imitated by courtiers and spreads downward; the result of this process is “fashion” in clothing. This is a fundamental principle of a trickle-down theory of fashion. Competitive imitation is prompted by the desire to assert equality with a person. Veblen’s discussion of fashion (1899 [1957]) remains within the framework of the creation and institutionalization of the leisure class through consumption activities. He identifies three properties of fashion: (1) It is an expression of the wearer’s wealth. Expenditure on clothing is a striking example of conspicuous consumption. Clothes are the evidence and indication of economic wealth at the first glance. What is not expensive is unworthy and inferior. (2) It shows that one does not need to earn one’s living or is not engaged in any kind of productive physical labor. Elaborately elegant, neat, and spotless garments imply leisure.

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

23

The less practical and functional a garment is, the more it is a symbol of high class. Some styles require assistance in getting dressed. (3) It is up to date. It must be “in fashion,” which means that it must be appropriate for the present time. While the second point is not applicable to today’s fashion phenomenon because the practicality or impracticality of a style does not define fashion, the first and third points must be considered in depth. In subsequent chapters, I will explain which types of clothing serve the purpose of conspicuous consumption and how fashion as an institutionalized system makes and determines what is fashionable. No writer places more emphasis on imitation than Tarde (1903); imitation is the key to his overall social theory. Tarde elaborates his thought largely through three central concepts: invention, imitation, and opposition. Inventions, the creations of talented individuals, are disseminated throughout social systems by the process of imitation. These imitations spread, regularly progressing toward the limits of the system until they come into contact with some obstacle. The three processes form an interdependent relationship, continuing to generate and influence one another in multiple ways. Upper-class women invent new styles, and when they are imitated, in order to express their oppositions, these women come up with newer styles. Like Spencer (1896 [1996]), Tarde (1903) postulates that social relations are essentially imitative relationships. Thus, fashion with its imitative nature is a crucial phenomenon in understanding society. He holds, like many others, that fashion fundamentally consists of the imitation of a few superiors by a great number of inferiors.

Fashion as Class Distinction: Inclusion and Exclusion In contrast to other classical sociologists (Simmel 1904 [1957]; Spencer 1896 [1966]; Sumner 1906 [1940]; Sumner and Keller 1927; Tarde 1903; Toennies 1887 [1963]) who argue that imitation is a positive behavior, Veblen (1899 [1957]) degrades the act of imitation since the imitation remains merely an imitation; that is, a second-order, second-rate reproduction. Nothing can compensate for the lack of “real” products such as “real” pearls or “real” silk; in other words, the materials employed must be difficult to obtain or laborious to produce. Veblen explains: We all find a costly hand-wrought article of apparel much preferable, in point of beauty and of serviceability, to a less expensive imitation of it, however cleverly the spurious article may imitate the costly original; and what offends our sensibilities in the spurious article is not that it falls short in form or color, or, indeed, in visual effect in any way. The offensive object may be so close an imitation as to defy any but the closest scrutiny; and yet so soon as the

24Fashion-ology

counterfeit is detected, its aesthetic value, and its commercial value as well, declines precipitately. (1899 [1957]: 81) Veblen argues that increasing wealth made the ruling class pay attention to the display of leisure as well as leisure goods. This “conspicuous consumption” is at once an expression of wealth and a demonstration of purchasing power. In his theory, he discusses why some consumers prefer to pay more but does not indicate how they come to know which objects would fulfill the purposes of conspicuous consumption or how the value of an object is created and determined. In Spencer’s view, fashion is a symbol of the manifestation of relationships between superiors and inferiors that functions as a social control. Various forms of obeisance through mutilations, presents, visits, forms of address, titles, badges, and costumes express domination and submission, and thus, fashion is a symbol of social rank and status (Spencer 1896 [1966]). Although Spencer does not make an explicit distinction between clothing and fashion, he implies that what is important is not the actual clothes that are worn but the wearer’s position in society, which has the power to transform clothing into fashion. Like Spencer, Toennies (1909 [1961]) argues that we follow fashion “slavishly” to indicate our acceptance of the leadership of those who dominate the groups in which we desire membership, just as we follow the customs and traditions of such groups as an indication of our desire to remain among or join them. This interpretation is similar to Simmel’s (1904 [1957]) argument. Simmel points out that, in addition to imitation, demarcation constitutes an important factor in fashion since the act of imitation arises out of the desire for class distinction. He argues that fashion serves to unite a given class and to segregate it from other classes. It poses a threat to the upper-bourgeois class and offers an opportunity to the lower working class to cross that class boundary. Simmel postulates (1904 [1957]: 546): “The fashions for the upper classes develop their power of exclusion against the lower in proportion as general culture advances, at least until the mingling of the classes and the leveling effect of democracy exert a counter-influence.” Therefore, for Simmel, fashion is a form of both imitation and social equalization, but paradoxically, in changing incessantly, it differentiates one time from another and one social stratum from another. It unites those of a social class and segregates them from others. The elite initiate a fashion and, when the mass imitates it in an effort to obliterate the external distinctions of class, abandons it for a newer mode; this is a process that speeds up with the increase of wealth. Fashion contains the attraction of highly changeable differentiation. Likewise, if one is dressed in such a way that one cannot engage in menial physical labor, one is marked as a member or dependent of the leisure class,

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

25

or at least as someone who for a time can “dress the part” of a member of that class (Veblen 1899 [1957]).

Fashion as Social Custom Sumner (1906 [1940]), see also Sumner and Keller (1927), and Toennies (1887 [1963]) treats fashion as a social custom. He locates the notion of fashion within the scope of a much larger perspective, including fashion in clothing. He regards a large array of human activities, beliefs, and artifacts as fashions. His definition of fashion includes its usage in terms of kissing, shaking hands, bowing, and smiling in conversation, which, according to Sumner, are all controlled primarily by fashion. He argues that fashion is an aspect of mores, and it may affect any form of human activity. Sumner also discusses fashion and clothing in connection with imitation. Sumner and Keller explain: Those who follow it are practicing a sort of imitation sometimes enthusiastic, but oftener simply enforced by fear. It extends all the way from dress and ornament to ideals of character and favorite objects of enthusiasm and devotion …. Then come social contagion and imitation; the crowd falls into line and follows the path which has been lightly worn by a sparse vanguard. (1927: 324) The term “folkways” was coined by Sumner to describe norms that are simply the customary, normal, habitual ways that a group does things. Folkways is a broad concept that covers relatively permanent traditions, and he gives examples such as the Christmas tree, and the white wedding dress, as well as short-lived fads and fashions. A key feature of all folkways is that there is no strong feeling of right or wrong attached to them. They are simply the way people usually do things. Similarly, Toennies is influenced by Spencer’s account of fashion and relates it to custom. His Community and Society (1887 [1963]) contrasts a personalistic traditional type of society with the impersonal, rational, modern society. His polar types of society are based on two kinds of human interaction. Toennies describes custom as a kind of “social will” formed through habit and from practices based on tradition. Custom points toward the past and we legitimize it through traditional usage. Custom determines not only ancient cult practices but also the manner and form of rites and ceremonies. This power of custom seems to wane and die in times of revolution and great social change, such as a time of transition from community (Gemeinschaft) to society (Gesellschaft). Customs are unwritten laws. The essence of custom is practice, what we actually do in our social relations, and it also signifies community. What begins as a mark of distinction often ends as a common custom. Toennies, despite not using Spencer’s term, suggests that, when

26Fashion-ology

reverential imitation occurs, the manners of people of distinction are copied by their inferiors as well as subordinates, and new manners must be created by those who wish to distinguish themselves from their imitators. The manners of the elites are distinct from those of the lower ranks in society. Elites base their manners on common custom, but at the same time they do everything possible to differentiate their manners from the customs of the common people. Toennies discusses custom in clothing, which fixes and orders what would otherwise be arbitrary. It establishes certain dresses as feminine and masculine, as well as other differences in social roles such as unmarried and widowed, youth and adult, or master and servant. Clothing is used to legitimize the wearer’s position through symbolic identifications with traditions already powerful in their society. Outward appearances are all we really can achieve. Clothing among country people is a genuine expression of custom when it is worn as regional or national dress. Urban elite dress differs from such costume in its function as a symbol of class or rank. Some forms of urban dress remain subject to custom because preferences in such dress remain subject to social beliefs and traditions. Distinction in dress is very different where fashion dominates. Desire for distinction is expressed in frequent change of dress and in frequent discard of what has already been worn. The drive for distinction weakens the power of tradition, and this is the beginning of fashion as well as Gesellschaft.

Fashion, Modernity, and Social Mobility By understanding imitation as a characteristic of fashion among many others, we learn that it requires a certain kind of social system for imitation to occur or for imitation to be “allowed” to occur. Imitation is something that must be permitted by authority, which in turn implies the thrust toward equality that characterizes a modern democratic social system (Spencer 1896 [1966]). In medieval and early modern Europe, sumptuary laws prohibited people in the subordinate ranks from living or dressing like those above them. However, as industrialism in a less hierarchical society made wealth and ranks more flexible, people became wealthy enough to compete in style of living with those above them in rank. This development signifies that fashion both requires a certain degree of mobility and fluidity within a society and promotes a more egalitarian society and erases class boundaries. Fashion phenomena occur only in a particular social context that allows social mobility. Immobility in the distribution of vestimentary signs always corresponds to immobility in social structures (Perrot 1994). Prior to the sixteenth century, there was minimal mobility in Europe, where social roles and statuses were rigidly fixed, often by law and certainly by custom. Thus, fashion did not emerge in society. According to Tarde, Spencer, Simmel, and Toennies, fashion functions as an equalizing mechanism because imitation is

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

27

one of the means of reducing inequality, suppressing caste, class, and national barriers. The lower strata gradually rise, step by step to the highest ranks. Through assimilation and imitation, inequality is no longer aristocratic but democratic (Tarde 1903). Thus social superiority is no longer hereditary but individual. Therefore, the origins of fashion lie in the origins of modernity with the growth of industrial capitalism. Koenig’s discussion of modernity and the link between the emergence of fashion and democratization is compelling. Certainly, the radical difference between the old upper class and the lower classes has disappeared. But this does not mean that the minor differences need also disappear. On the contrary … minor differences can be felt far more strongly when general equality has won the day. It could be said that in the modern mass civilization of the advanced industrial societies it is not the great contrasts, but the delicate differences that are effective; the delicate difference is the most perfect expression of the increasing democratization of society. This applies not only to politics but also to fashion consumption. (1973: 65) Thus fashion plays a significant role in the manifestation of subtle differences. The class boundary has become blurry, and people wish to make subtle distinctions in order to differentiate themselves from others. This is what fashion in the modern world has become. Because there are more opportunities for everyone, the competition is more democratic and the right to participate in the competition is prevalent; at the same time, fashion as a concept and clothing fashion as a phenomenon and practice emerge in many societies. As Simmel points out: People like fashion from outside and such foreign fashions assume greater values within the circle, simply because they did not originate there. The exotic origin of fashions seems strongly to favor the exclusiveness of the groups which adopt them… This motive for foreignness which fashion employs in its socializing endeavors, is restricted to higher civilization. (1904 [1957]: 545–6) The newness that, as noted earlier, is the essence of fashion is the typical condition of modernity and postmodernity. The desire for change is characteristic of cultural life in industrial capitalism, which fashion expresses so well (Wilson 1985), but at the same time postmodern society is a society driven to create not only novelty but also a perpetual desire for need and for endless difference (Barnard 2012). Whether analyzing modernity or postmodernity, one thing that all analysts tend to agree on is that it is fashion, and not dress or clothing, is the topic under consideration. The same characteristics of fashion are being used to exemplify both modernity and postmodernity. Furthermore, modern

28Fashion-ology

and postmodern societies are both societies in which mobility is possible and desirable, and as Baudrillard (1981, 1976 [1993]) explains, fashion appears only in socially mobile societies, although not all the mobile, open-class societies have fashion. Baudrillard emphasizes fashion as a modern phenomenon: “Fashion only exists in the framework of modernity … In politics, in technology, in art, in culture, modernity defines itself by the rate of change tolerated by the system without really changing anything in the essential order … Modernity is a code and fashion is its emblem.” Furthermore, he states: The formal logic of fashion imposes an increased mobility on all the distinctive social signs. Does this formal mobility of signs correspond to a real mobility in social structures (professional, political, cultural)? Certainly not. Fashion— and more broadly, consumption, which is inseparable from fashion—masks a profound social inertia. It itself is a factor of social inertia, insofar as the demand for real social mobility frolics and loses itself in fashion, in the sudden and often cyclical changes of objects, clothes and ideas. And to the illusion of change is added the illusion of democracy. (1981: 78) For Baudrillard, fashion is one of those institutions that best restores cultural inequality and social discrimination, establishing them under the pretense of abolishing them. Fashion is governed by the social strategy of class.

The Origin of the Fashion Phenomenon While Finkelstein (1996: 23) remarks that fashion is a versatile social and psychological mechanism that lacks a fixed point of origin, Lipovetsky and many others argue that fashion as a concept emerged as the phenomenon of fashion began. While clothes are almost universal, fashion is not. Fashion does not belong to all ages or to all civilizations: it has an identifiable starting point in history (Lipovetsky 1994). Fashion is an outstanding mark of modern civilization (Blumer 1969a). J. C. Flugel (1930) specifically indicates that fashion is linked to a particular society and culture, those of the West. Bell (1947 [1976]: 105) also points out that fashion, as we know it in the West, is not and never was a universal condition of dress. It is a European product and is not nearly as old as the European civilization and it is an expanding force: it affects an ever greater number of people in an ever greater part of the world, although the expansion of fashion has not been a regular phenomenon. On the other hand, Craik (1994) questions whether fashion can be confined to the development of European fashion and argues that the term “fashion” needs revision because fashion is too often equated with modern European high fashion. Similarly, Cannon (1998: 24) says that because fashion is normally seen

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

29

as a more recent and specifically Western development, its role in the creation of style among smaller-scale societies is generally unrecognized. Cannon (1998: 23) argues that the current definition of fashion excludes the systematic changes in style that occur in all cultures, and that in smaller-scale societies systematic style change may only occur sporadically as it is activated by circumstances, and continue only so long as the conducive conditions exist. Therefore, a more inclusive definition of fashion must encompass the basic process of style change without the requirement that it be the continuous process evident in recent Western industrial societies (Cannon 1998: 23). Are there societies without fashion? If so, in what social context does fashion exist? Is the system of changing styles of dress universal? Whether fashion is universal or not, or whether fashion is a Western phenomenon or not, all depends on how one defines fashion. Indeed, fashion can be applied to nonindustrialized, non-Western cultures depending on the definition of fashion. Like Craik (1994), Cannon strongly disagrees with the perspective that fashion is a Western phenomenon and argues: “Although the processes of fashion comparison, emulation and differentiation are more noticeably apparent in the rapid changes that characterize systems of industrial production, the same processes are observable or at least inferable in most cultures … The universality of fashion is … evident in its general definition as an agent of style change” (1998: 23). Based on her premise, therefore, fashion is found not only in modern societies but also in all known societies. Explanations of fashion, as defined in recent Western contexts, typically focus on its psychological motivation and social purpose (Blumer 1969a; Sproles 1985). Its psychological basis, which is the desire to create a positive selfimage, is recognized as widely if not universally applicable cross-culturally, but the social role of fashion is often restricted by definition to those societies that exhibit a clearly defined class structure (McKendrick, Brewer, and Plumb 1982; Simmel 1904 [1957]). This definition is unnecessarily restrictive and ignores pervasive but much more subtle distinctions in status based on personality, wealth, and skill. These are equally capable of giving rise to fashion-based differentiation and emulation, especially in circumstances where the basis for prestige recognition is uncertain or undergoing change (Cannon 1998: 24). Cannon continues: Fashion is an inherent part of human social interaction and not the creation of an elite group of designers, producers, or marketers. Because of its basis in individual social comparison, fashion cannot be controlled without undermining its ultimate purpose, which is the expression of individual identity. If self-identity were never in doubt and social comparison never took place, there would be no demand for fashion, and there would be no need or opportunity for style change. (1998: 35)

30Fashion-ology

Cannon focuses on the phenomenon of fashion, that is, the changing styles in dress, but does not explain whether the term that is equivalent to “fashion” exists in traditional societies. The investigation of fashion as an institutionalized system in Chapter 3 will answer the question as to why fashion exists in some cities and cultures. Flugel (1930) distinguishes between “fixed” and “modish” forms of dress. He suggests that fashion is linked to a particular type of social organization, society, and culture, those of the West. Fixed costume changes slowly while modish costume changes very rapidly in time. For him, it is this latter type of costume that predominates in the Western world today, and which indeed (with certain important exceptions) has predominated there for several centuries; a fact that must be regarded as one of the most characteristic features of modern European civilization, since in other civilizations, both of the past and of the present, fashion seems to have played a much more modest role (Flugel 1930: 130). Just as Flugel separated fashion as a process of continuous change from short-term, ephemeral fads, Blumer (1969a) largely removed fashion from the domain of traditional societies (see also Kawamura 2004).

Sociological Studies of Fashion since the Mid-Twentieth Century Classical theorists gave mostly an intuitive and anecdotal observation of fashion providing no empirical evidence to support their theories. The significant shift over the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century is that contemporary scholars conduct empirical research for their studies of fashion. Bourdieu (1984), a French sociologist, shares many of his views with the classical contemporary discourse of fashion as imitation. He includes fashion within his theory of distinction making. He uses the notion of taste as a marker that produces and maintains social boundaries, both between the dominant and dominated classes and within these groups. Thus, taste is one of the key signifiers and elements of social identity. Bourdieu’s interpretation of clothing and fashion lies within the framework of cultural taste and class struggle. The bourgeoisie emphasizes the aesthetic value and the importance of the distinction between inside and outside, domestic and public, while the working classes make a realistic and functional use of clothing—and they want “value for money” and what will last. Fashion has a distinction function and also opposes the dominant and the dominated fractions, or the established and the challengers, given the equivalence between economic powers. This reinforcement of the line between classes is best seen in a society where there is no one absolute authoritative power, such as the aristocrats in the feudal age. Fashion reflects the advent of democracy in which the boundaries between classes have become less rigid.

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

31

Bourdieu (1984) uses a survey technique and draws upon two major surveys, undertaken in 1963 and 1967–8, of 1,217 subjects from Paris, Lille, and a small provincial town, supplemented by a wide range of data from other surveys concerned with a range of topics. The empirical part of the book is concerned with the detailed explication of the lifestyle differences among differing class fractions. As far as taste in clothing is concerned, statistics are given on clothing purchases. Questions are asked about the quantity and quality of the purchased items of clothing. As with his other studies of aspects of French society, Bourdieu explicitly states that this is not just a study of France. The model, he argues, is valid beyond the particular French case and, no doubt, for every stratified society. Bell (1947 [1976]) used much of Veblen’s theoretical framework of the trickledown theory of fashion. Bell sees the concept of social class as essential to an understanding of the “mechanism of fashion.” His view is similar to that of Simmel, a much earlier writer on fashion, who believed that fashion arose as a form of class differentiation in a relatively open-class society. As noted earlier, Simmel saw fashion as a process involving a series of steps: an elite class seeks to set itself apart by its distinctive dress; the class just below it then adopts this distinctive dress in order to identify with the superior status of the class above it; then the next lower class copies the dress of the elite group indirectly by copying the dress of the class just below the elite; and as a result of this emulation, the elite are forced to devise a new form of distinguishing dress. One of the few contemporary sociologists who refers to imitation, as classical sociologists have done, is Koenig, a German sociologist. Koenig (1973) reviews much of the earlier work on fashion and the basic ideas provided by Tarde, Spencer, and Simmel, and he postulates that imitation, starting from an initial triggering action, creates currents that cause uniform action among the masses. Some factors promote and some inhibit imitation. Connections with the subject of our imitation promote imitation. Prominent factors can be sympathy, admiration, or respect for the wisdom or the position of the person we imitate. However, it is always necessary for a certain relationship to exist between the imitator and the imitated. From this fact, we derive the principle that imitation is by no means random: it occurs exclusively along already existing social connections; the person imitated can be either an equal or a superior. This non-randomness also implies that imitation does not by itself create social relationships but is merely one of several symptoms as well as manifestations of already existing relationships. This principle is confirmed when we look at the other side of the problem, the inhibition of imitation. We feel the most intense aversion to imitating some other person whenever this person’s way of acting and thinking appears strange or senseless to us. On the other hand, Blumer (1969a) does not believe that a class-differentiation model is valid in explaining fashion in contemporary society and replaces it with collective selection. While appreciating Simmel’s contribution to the study of

32Fashion-ology

fashion, which he uses to set off his own argument, Blumer argues that it is a parochial treatment, suited only to fashion in dress in seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century Europe within a particular class structure. It does not fit the operation of fashion in our contemporary epoch with its many diverse fields and its emphasis on modernity. While not rejecting the power of the prestige of a wearer, he argues that one does not set the direction of fashion. Blumer takes a different perspective and argues: The efforts of an elite class to set itself apart in appearance take place inside of the movement of fashion instead of being its cause … The fashion mechanism appears not in response to a need of class differentiation and class emulation, but in response to a wish to be in fashion, to be abreast of what has good standing, to express new tastes which are emerging in a changing world. (1969a: 281) Blumer (1969a) participated in the seasonal fashion shows in Paris and saw buyers and journalists selecting the styles that would eventually be presented for consumers. This is how he observed that fashion buyers are the unwitting surrogates of the fashion public. He said: “It is not the prestige of the elite which makes the design fashionable but, instead, it is the suitability or potential fashionableness of the design which allows the prestige of the elite to be attached to it. The design has to correspond to the direction of incipient taste of the fashion consuming public” (1969a: 280).

Fashion as Collective Selection The transformation of taste, of collective taste, results from the diversity of experience that occurs in social interaction. For Blumer, fashion is directed by consumer taste and it is a fashion designer’s task to predict and read the modern taste of the collective mass. He is proposing a “trickle-up” theory and situates consumers in the construction of fashion. But fashion encompasses more than consumers, although they cannot be excluded from fashion. Like Blumer, Davis (1992) rejects the class-differentiation model and argues that the model used by classical theorists is outdated because although what people wear and how they wear it can reveal much regarding their social standing, this is not all that dress communicates and, under many circumstances, it is by no means the most important thing communicated. He shares with Blumer the view that it is to the collective facets of our social identities that fashion addresses itself. His focus is on the relationship between fashion/clothing and individual identity in modern society. According to Davis, as one’s identity becomes increasingly multiple, the meaning of fashion also becomes increasingly ambivalent—a notion in line with postmodern thought. According to Davis:

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

33

Our social identities are rarely the stable amalgams we take them to be. Prodded by social and technological change, the biological decrements of the life cycle, visions of utopia, and occasions of disaster, our identities are forever in ferment, giving rise to numerous strains, paradoxes, ambivalences, and contradictions within ourselves. It is upon these collectively experienced, sometimes historically recurrent, identity instabilities that fashion feeds. (1992: 17) However, if we concentrate only on the ambiguity of fashion as Davis suggests, it leaves nothing for sociologists to investigate. Ephemerality and ambiguity are the reasons why fashion is not taken seriously. It is the content of fashion that is constantly shifting, not the institutions (Kawamura 2004).

Fashion and the Sociology of Culture All the different perspectives of fashion discussed earlier, such as fashion as imitation and fashion as an irrationally changing phenomenon often linked to women, neglect the systemic nature of fashion production, but they set the stage for the further discussion of fashion. A great deal of fashion writing in the mass media today drives away scholars, sociologists in particular, because they doubt the legitimacy of a subject that is believed to be ephemeral and without intellectual rationale. What sociologists of fashion can contribute to the project of cultural analysis is a focus on the institutions of fashion and the social relations among fashion professionals, the social differentiation between groups of designers, the status of the designers, their ethnic heritage, and fashion systems worldwide. It is a sociology of culture that recognizes the importance of and pays much attention to the social-structural processes of cultural production and consumption. It operates with an understanding of social institutions and cultural symbols, which include activities and objects signified through culture. Thus it provides the interpretation of structural features of cultural life. In the study of culture, it is necessary to understand not only technical processes and arrangements for the manufacturing and distribution of cultural phenomena, but also the culture through which the products are given meaning. We need to discover how products circulate, how they are given particular meanings in the context of a number of different production-consumption relationships. Thus, I treat fashion as a cultural practice as well as a symbolic product. Culture is the means through which people create meaningful worlds in which to live. These cultural worlds are constructed through interpretations, experiences, and activities whereby material is produced and consumed. In this book, I describe a set of organizations, individuals, and routine organizational activities that both materially and symbolically produce items of fashion culture,

34Fashion-ology

some of which become popular and influential, most of which do not. This perspective locates culture in concrete social and cultural institutions. Since, within the study of culture, fashion can be treated as a manufactured cultural object, sociologists who study fashion can learn much from sociologists analyzing other symbol-producing cultural institutions, such as art, science, and religion. Cultural objects can be analyzed from both/either consumption and/or production perspectives. Likewise, fashion can be a matter of personal consumption and identity, and also a matter of collective production and distribution. Like sociologists of culture who focus on the production perspective of culture, such as the production of art culture, literary culture, and gastronomic culture, I will discuss the production of fashion culture which is supported by the fashion system to which individuals, organizations, and institutions belong. Fashion is legitimate to study as a symbolic cultural object and as a manufactured thing produced in and by social organizations. Fashion is not visible or tangible and therefore it uses clothing as a symbolic manifestation. The production of symbols places emphasis on the dynamic activity of institutions. Cultural institutions support the production of new symbols. Processes of production are themselves cultural phenomena in that they are combinations of meaningful practices that construct certain ways for individuals to conceive of and conduct themselves in an organizational context. Whether fashion is art or not has been much debated, but it certainly follows what sociologists have postulated for the arts (Becker 1982; Bourdieu and Delsaut 1975; White and White 1965 [1993]; Wolff 1983, 1993; Zolberg 1990). Those scholars who start from the premise that art should be contextualized in terms of place and time, direct attention to the relation of the artist and artwork to extra-aesthetic considerations (Zolberg 1990). Bourdieu (1984) and  Becker (1982) analyze the social construction of aesthetic ideas and values and focus on the processes of creation and production as well as on institutions and organizations. In this perspective, a work of art is a process involving the collaboration of more than one actor and working through certain social institutions. Like art, fashion is social in character, has a social base, and exists in a social context. Moreover, it involves large numbers of people. Like other social phenomena, including art, fashion cannot be interpreted apart from its social context, and very few have attempted to look carefully at the organizational setting in which fashion is produced.

Fashion as a Manufactured Cultural Symbol The sociology of culture represented most prominently by the study of arts organizations and institutions is known as “the production-of-culture approach”

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

35

and begins from the assumption that the production of cultural objects involves social cooperation, collective activities, and groups. These cultural objects become a part of and contribute to culture. The production-of-culture approach is most useful in clarifying the rapid changes in popular culture where “production” is our front and where the explanation of novelty and change is more pertinent than the explanation of stasis (Peterson 1976). There is no more apt an idea than to study fashion where novelty is the very key in defining the concept. Commonalities found in social and not aesthetic factors make the study of fashion just as important as the study of fine art or classical music. Like art, fashion can be assimilated into the sociology of occupations and organizations. In either case, the artist or the designer is dethroned as a genius whose creativity can only be appreciated rather than analyzed and replaced with a worker whose habits can be systematically investigated. In spite of the emphasis on the role of creative individuals, it is social groups that ultimately produce art, music, literature, television, news, and fashion as social phenomena. These studies typically look at, for instance, publishers’ decision-making criteria in commercial publishing houses (Coser 1982), the role of the radio and record industries in relation to changes in the world of country music (Peterson 1997), or the gatekeeper role of commercial galleries in the New York Art World (Szántó 1996). Other work has taken its departure from Becker’s analysis (1982), which is devoted to the investigation of the social relations of cultural production, from composers and performers to instrument makers, fundraisers, and so on. Becker’s work identifies the social hierarchies of art, its decision-making processes, and aesthetic outcomes of these extra-aesthetic factors. What is most significant in placing fashion and fashion designers within the sociology of culture and arts is that neither the sociology of culture nor the sociology of arts treats the objects as the creation of an individual genius. This is the fundamental principle shared by the sociology of fashion and sociology of culture and the arts. Studies of fashion and designers can draw much from Becker’s studies on arts and artists and Peterson’s study on the music industry and musicians. In opposition to the idea that cultural artifacts are simply the work of individual artists from whom they are then filtered to the public, Peterson (1976) stresses that the elements of culture are fabricated among occupational groups and within the social milieu for whom symbol-system production is most self-consciously the center of activity. On the other hand, Becker (1982) reminds readers that the principle of his analysis is social-organizational, not aesthetic, and he argues that the creation of works of art involves collective practices that are coordinated by shared conventions or rules and consensual definitions that were arrived at as various people formed, were attracted to, and actively recruited to inhabit different “art worlds.” For Becker, the cultural and social values of the art created the

36Fashion-ology

conditions for creative collaboration, which are deliberately invented by formal cultural organizations. Ryan and Peterson (1982) illustrate an empirical case study of country music. They consider the work of a number of skilled specialists who have a part in shaping the final work as it goes through a series of stages which, superficially at least, resemble an assembly line. They follow the progress of country music songs along a decision chain of activities that involve writing, publishing, recording, marketing, manufacturing, release, and consumption. At each stage they observe that a number of choices were confronted and a number of modifications might be made to the songs. Music was allowed to change as it passed along the chain. Thus, music represents more than the sounds we hear just as fashion is more than what we wear. Ryan and Peterson argue that the making of country music is coordinated around the idea of a “product image.” This involves the different people in the process, from studio producers to promotion people, using their judgment to shape “a piece of work so that it is most likely to be accepted by decision makers at the next link in the chain” (Ryan and Peterson 1982). All the personnel involved in the chain were adopting a pragmatic, strategic, and commercially oriented approach, organized around a product image, which then enabled them to collaborate in a very practical way. Such an approach draws heavily on the professional ideas of senior record company executives, who often explain that their organizations work in these very terms—staff united with a shared, commercially defined goal, that is producing the image, which overrides personal or departmental divisions (Ryan and Peterson 1982). While music industry staff may have some notion of a product image as a type of professional ideal, this idea may often be contested, challenged, and transformed as a recording is produced, rather than acting simply as an organizing principle. While staff clearly had some notion of a product image, there were a number of different ideas about the meaning of this product image and how it should be pursued in practical terms. However, producing culture does not simply involve making a product. Culture is not simply a product that is created, disseminated, and consumed, but it is a product that is processed by organizational and macro-institutional factors. Today’s designers place the strongest emphasis on recreating and reproducing their image, and the image that is projected through clothing is reflected on the designer’s personal image as an individual. Both the fashion and music industries, in this sense, are image-making industries. Although Becker does not use the term “art system”—instead he uses “art worlds”—my research has many parallels with his analysis. With the focus of sociologists on social structures and processes, most of the writing on the sociology of the arts deals with the structure and activity of groups and institutions that handle art. Becker examines material, social, and symbolic resources for

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

37

the creation of meaningful cultural objects. He is not interested in what the final objects mean but makes an attempt to explain what is social about them. He focuses on the wide array of cooperative links between “creators” and “support personnel” necessary for the production of cultural objects. Critics, dealers, and museum personnel, like everyone else in Becker’s art worlds, simply do their jobs. Their special power in the world of art and the relationship of aesthetic stratification of culture to social hierarchy are not things Becker primarily pays attention to. He does not emphasize how such hierarchical considerations, both social and aesthetic, enter into the production process. Unlike Becker’s work, my analysis includes the stratification dimensions of producers of fashion, designers in particular, to understand social differences among those who design clothes in the system of fashion. Bourdieu’s cultural analysis directs attention toward the stratification functions of cultural systems, that is, to the way social groups are identified by their cultural tastes or their abilities to create cultural institutions suited to members of their social strata. While Bourdieu is concerned with the differences between the groups that consume cultural symbols, I concentrate on the stratification within the occupational group of designers in Paris. Cultural stratification theory as represented by Bourdieu begins with the assumption that cultural differences and social attention to cultural differences are important sociologically because they are linked to fundamental patterns of social stratification that are maintained by differences in the cultural attributes of people from different strata. The designers’ position within the system of stratification determines the status of the products they produce. At the same time, the designers’ social status reflects on that of their audience. Furthermore, the production-of-culture perspective includes studies dealing with many different aspects of culture, and applies to studies of the arts, media and popular culture, market structures, and gatekeeping systems on the careers and activities of culture creators (Crane 1992). White and White’s (1965 [1993]) classic study of the emergence of Impressionist art in nineteenth-century France can also be treated within the production-of-culture framework. They found that the older academic art production system collapsed from inherent structural conditions, and Impressionist painters came in through the emerging art market developed by Parisian dealers and critics. The production-of-culture perspective has been criticized for failing to pay attention to “features of the art object itself,” tending toward empiricism, and not locating specific institutions in the wider social context (Wolff 1993). It is also considered to be ahistorical and to lack explanatory and critical sociological power (Wolff 1993: 31). However, it often produces very detailed, smallscale studies, and that helps us see the processes and institutions of artistic production in detail and deviate our attention from the material object of clothing and dress.

38Fashion-ology

Youth Subcultures in Fashion Research There have been a number of important studies on youth subcultures, fashion, and/or music that could make a contribution to a systemic analysis of fashion, as they can be treated as case studies that are applicable to the notion of fashion as an institutionalized system as proposed in the theoretical frameworks of fashion. The conventional fashion system found in major fashion cities that emphasize the significance of fashion shows during Fashion Week to receive worldwide recognition has now been replaced by an alternative fashion system. It becomes necessary for researchers to look at what is happening on the streets, especially with the youths and their subcultural affiliation because they have a distinct appearance. They in turn affect the fashion industry that flows and is disseminated not through a trickle-down process but through a trickle-up process. At the same time, we see the declining power of fashion cities with a conventional fashion system as discussed later in the book. Brent Luvaas in his Street Style: An Ethnography of Fashion Blogging (2016) conducts an auto-ethnographical fieldwork of street-style bloggers and photographers while setting up his own blog and posting street-fashion photos that he took himself on the streets of New York, Philadelphia, Buenos Aires, and Helsinki among other cities. He investigates the world of street-fashion photography from a global perspective, which is often about the youths, and also studies the increasing incorporation of street-style bloggers into the global fashion industry, as well as the insider/outsider, professional/amateur, participant/observer position that they occupy in relation to that industry (Luvaas 2016: 18). Ross Haenfler looks at eight different subcultural groups closely in his Goths, Gamers and Grrrls (2012), such as skinheads, the punk rock, and hip hop, among others, and provides an overview of subcultural theory that runs across almost all subcultures. Some of the key sociological concepts, such as resistance, deviance, and delinquency, are explained. His work is more theoretical and conceptual than empirical. In Punk Style (2012), Monica Sklar traces the history of punk fashion and shows this influential genre of fashion that has lasted for decades since it first came out in London. Although it is a subculture with an implication of subversive qualities, the style has become a dominant field in fashion, especially through the internet. These studies along with others (Lunning 2012; Dhoest et al. 2015; Elferen and Weinstock 2015) demonstrate that there is an alternative fashion system with its own mechanisms and components in contemporary fashion. Fashion derives from multiple regions, places, organizations, and communities, and a focus on youth subcultures is one of the fields that demands attention in fashion and dress studies (Kawamura 2012, 2016).

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

39

The purpose of looking at subcultures is, as Dick Hebdige (1979) called British punks, “a spectacular subculture,” explaining the crucial significance of their external appearance. In addition, Angela McRobbie explained that subcultures are aesthetic movements whose raw materials are by definition “popular” in that they are drawn from the world of the popular mass media, and it does not require any education to know and enjoy them (McRobbie 1991: xv). And these aesthetic movements began to constitute a system of their own over the years although some of their components are not as precisely determined or structured as the ones in the conventional fashion system explained in the previous chapters. The exhibition PUNK: Chaos to Couture that took place in 2013 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art also looked at punk not as an attitude but as an aesthetic (Bolton 2013: 1), and that is what fashion is about—an expression of one’s aesthetic taste. It is an interesting irony that it was never the intention of members of the punk subculture to create popular fashion or an alternative fashion establishment, and their styles were initially called “anti-fashion.” I will first review two basic camps in the traditional subcultural theories in addition to another theoretical perspective based on these two that came afterward, and explore the key determinants that exist in these subcultural groups. Fashion that emerges out of youth subcultures is as an alternative fashion system that is different from the traditional fashion system. Some of the empirical case studies in this chapter include youth subcultures on the streets, such as Japanese Lolitas, British punks, and American sneaker collectors, as they go through different legitimation and diffusion processes with distinct gatekeeping functions that exist within their peer groups. I argue that a subculture is a system of the values, attitudes, modes of behavior, and lifestyles of a social group that is distinct from but not completely dissociated from the dominant culture. In modern society, there is a great diversity of such subcultures. And it is an alternative system of fashion that needs to be examined. Mainstream and high fashion within the conventional system is often managed, controlled, and guided by industry professionals with authoritative gatekeeping functions, such as designers, merchandisers, editors, and publicists, and information is then transmitted to the masses. In contrast, youth subcultural fashion starts among creative youngsters who are mostly untrained individuals or nonprofessionals, and similar to the earlier punk youths, it is not their intention to widely commercialize their styles. The alternative fashion system of the youths provides a unique production/consumption process and a less or nonhierarchical structure within the system. This phenomenon is an indication that fashion has been increasingly decentralized and fashion information comes from numerous sources. Catwalks have been partially replaced by streets. The traditional trickledown theory of fashion, as indicated above, is being increasingly replaced by the new trickle-up theory or trickle-across theory with the increasing popularity of youth and subcultural fashion.

40Fashion-ology

The Theoretical Foundation of Subcultures Some of the major research studies in urban sociology using ethnographic fieldwork as a research method were found at The Chicago School, which refers to the Sociology Department at the University of Chicago, and they made a lasting contribution to the development of one of the microlevel social theories known as symbolic interactionism in explaining marginal groups of people. As early as 1918, W. I. Thomas and Florian Witold Znaniecki published their book on Chicago’s Polish immigrants (1918); Nels Anderson wrote a book on The Hobo (1922), which was about homelessness in Chicago; Frederic Thrasher’s study was on gangs that breed in a particular neighborhood (1927); and Edward Franklin Frazer’s work was on The Negro Family in the United States (1939). While the term “subculture” comes later on, their research subjects were often poor immigrants and racial minorities who were more or less detached from mainstream American society, or the deviant groups such as homeless people or gang members, many of whom lived on the social periphery and were often neglected by the dominant society. In the 1940s, scholars began to use the term “subculture” to account for particular kinds of social difference in a pluralized and fractured the United States (Gelder 2005: 21). Many of the American urban sociologists rarely labeled their work as subcultural studies although the population they had studied did carry the social characteristics and qualities of the subcultural groups. Nor did they have any of the components of outward appearance that can lead to styles and fashion. The signifier “culture” in subculture has traditionally referred to a “whole way of life” or “maps of meaning” that make the world intelligible to its members, and the prefix “sub” has connoted notions of distinctiveness and difference from the dominant or mainstream society (The SAGE Dictionary of Cultural Studies 2004). In contrast to American subcultural scholars/urban sociologists, those at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) established in 1964 at the University of Birmingham, UK, paid closer attention to the Marxist concept of social class as their central theme in reference to the emergence of subcultures, youth subcultures in particular. What is most striking in their argument is that subculture is essentially a working-class phenomenon. Based on this idea, if one belongs to an elite class, there is no need for him or her to be a member of a subculture. The two most important books that were published by the CCCS scholars are (1) Resistance Through Rituals (1976) edited by Stuart Hall and Tony Jefferson and (2) Subculture: The Meaning of Style by Dick Hebdige (1979). They examine skinheads, mods, and teddy boys (Hall and Jefferson 1976), and punks (Hebdige 1979), all of which have distinct stylistic expressions. In terms of their methodological research strategies, unlike their counterparts in the United States, they moved away from ethnography and applied semiotics to their

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

41

analyses of youth subcultures. Hebdige, in particular, has made an enormous contribution to the fundamental ideas on the punk subculture that shares distinct values and norms that go against dominant or mainstream society. Members often create their own verbal as well as nonverbal symbols for communication that may be comprehensible only to and shared by the inside members. If you are not dominant, you are subordinate; if you are not in the mainstream, you are on the periphery. Gelder (2007) argues that subcultures are social, with their own shared conventions, values, and rituals. But the meaning of a subculture is fluid and flexible today, and the most recent researchers in the field prefer to call these groups not a subculture but a neo-tribe or a scene.

Post-subcultural Theories and Contemporary Youth Subcultures It was the aforementioned two traditions in the United States and United Kingdom that laid the foundation of many of the subcultural studies that emerged afterward. Although the studies that came out of the CCCS were no doubt pioneers in the field, recent subcultural scholars move beyond these traditions and call their viewpoints “post-subcultural.” As indicated earlier, the CCCS framework with an emphasis on social class is seen as outdated because the form and content of a subculture have changed (Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2004; Hodkinson 2002; Muggleton and Weinzierl 2003). As Bennett and Hodkinson explain: This interpretation is out of step with research emerging from the field of youth transitions, in which a range of theorists have drawn attention to the apparently increasing diversity, complexity and longevity of youth and the porous nature of the boundaries between adolescence and adulthood. (2012: 1) Similarly, Muggelton and Weinzierl (2003) argue that the traditional Marxist approach tended to be age specific and age limited, examining only those in their teens and early twenties. I also argue that today’s subcultural members converge from various races, ethnicities, genders, sexualities, and religions. Instead of the term subculture, many post-subcultural theorists find it more appropriate to use the term “scene” or “neo-tribes” as proposed by Bennett and Peterson (2003). Bennett (2006: 223) points out that the concept portrays individuals as more reflexive in their appropriation and use of particular musical and stylistics resources. It also does not presume that participants’ actions are governed only by subcultural standards (Bennett and Peterson 2004: 3). The relationship between style, musical taste, and identity has become progressively weaker and has been articulated more fluidly (Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2004: 11) as youth subcultures are becoming increasingly subtle so that it is not just about a subculture versus a mainstream culture, which is too simplistic

42Fashion-ology

a classification. As Weinzierl and Muggleton explain (2003: 7), contemporary youth cultures are characterized by far more complex stratifications than that suggested by the simple dichotomy of “monolithic mainstream”—“resistant subcultures.” Furthermore, contemporary subcultural groups no longer carry the social implications of subversive and marginal qualities, and the analysis of the CCCS no longer reflects the political, cultural, and economic realities of the twenty-first century (Muggleton and Weinzierl 2003: 4). Subcultural groups, in the form of scenes or neo-tribes, are composed of fragmented components, and their identity becomes unhitched from family, geography, and tradition (Haenfler 2014: 10). Today’s youth are not interested in adopting a collective identity but take inspirations and ideas from different sources to construct a unique identity of their own, which Polhemus calls “a supermarket of style” (1994). For instance, a sneaker subculture that is made up of sneaker enthusiasts and collectors has emerged from an underground to an upper-ground subculture. While they possess their own distinct values and norms in regard to sneakers, they are still very much part of the mainstream culture in other facets of their everyday life. But for the purpose of our discussion in this book, I will continue to use the term subculture, which could mean a scene or a neo-tribe as the post-subcultural theorists suggest.

Gender and Race in Modern and Postmodern Fashion Discourse The term postmodernism/postmodernity has been used frequently by scholars and researchers in recent fashion discourse. It indicates that we do not live in a modern society, but that this is a postmodern society that we live in. Then what are the differences? How is postmodernity different from modernity? How do we distinguish the two in relation to fashion and clothing? According to the American Heritage Dictionary (2022), postmodernism/postmodernity rejects the universal validity of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization. They get rid of the existing ideas and values about conventional art, design, and style, including fashion. It first developed in the middle of the twentieth century as a way to reject modernism/modernity, and it relates to schools of thought, namely deconstructionism and post-structuralism, whose focus is on de-centeredness where there are no centers and relativism that point out that all viewpoints are equally valid, and there is no one absolute truth or objective reality (Barthes 1967; Derrida 1972, 1973; Foucault 1977, 1978; Irigaray 1974). The Victoria and Albert Museum in London showcased an exhibition entitled Postmodernism–Style and Subversion 1970–1990 (September 24, 2011–January 15, 2012), which

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

43

showed postmodernism as a historical movement and defined it as a movement as follows: Of all movements in art and design history, postmodernism is perhaps the most controversial. This era defies definition, … Postmodernism was an unstable mix of the theatrical and theoretical. It was visually thrilling, a multifaceted style that ranged from the colourful to the ruinous, the ludicrous to the luxurious. What they all had in common was a drastic departure from modernism’s utopian visions, which had been based on clarity and simplicity … Its key principles were complexity and contradiction. It was meant to resist authority.(V&A 2011) We can apply a postmodern perspective and provide its approach to gender and race, which are significant social identities for many of us. As indicated earlier, fashion has been feminized since the Industrial Revolution when male values changed dramatically, and all men, whether rich, middle class, or poor, placed their values on work ethic and gave up fashion, adornment, and selfdisplay because excessive interest on one’s physical appearance implied that he is not committed to his work as he should because he is a breadwinner for the family. As a result, fashion became exclusively a female affair and was devalued as something trivial, frivolous, superficial, and silly. Thus, the traditional ideas about gender show a clear separation between men and women in regards to their activities, behaviors, thoughts, dress, and adornment. Menswear and womenswear were treated as separate types of clothing, and American and European women were not allowed to wear trousers or pants until the end of the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the gender differences in clothing became slightly blurry as women began to adopt more masculine styles and had more choices. The concept of gender and clothing has been gradually changing, and as Negrin points out (2008), one of the features of fashion in the postmodern era has been the increasing prevalence of gender border crossings, where elements of male and female dress are mixed together in apparently arbitrary ensembles irrespective of the “sex” of the wearer. Designers such as Jean-Paul Gaultier have freely mixed gender signifiers, presenting outfits for men employing sensuous fabrics and colors normally associated with female dress, such as pink satin and gold lamé accompanied by “feminine” accoutrements such as handbags, gloves, and frills, on the one hand, and Jil Sanders designed “masculine” style garments such as sailor suits for women, on the other (Negrin 2008). Fashion performs gender, and gender is performed through fashion (Butler 1990), and therefore, the performance can be fluid, unfixed, and deconstructed. Such styles are known today as androgynous, genderless, gender-bending, or gender fluid. Similarly, with a population of transgender men and women earning more

44Fashion-ology

legal rights and social exposure, there is a new genre in the industry, which is discussed in Chapter 6. In the classical discourse of fashion, the theorists have primarily emphasized class in relation to fashion and dress, but very little was mentioned about race because it had been taken for granted that fashion originated in the West and therefore, was a white, Western phenomenon so there was no reason for any writers and scholars to explore the racial components in fashion. Race as well as ethnicity have been some of the social factors that had been dismissed and neglected in fashion research. Postmodern perspectives on race urge us to reconceptualize race and make an attempt to move beyond the racial categories and hierarchies that history has established. The long-lasting privilege, power, and authority of white, heterosexual male need to be reconsidered although a racial hierarchy is not easily erased. Categories that divide people according to their skin colors and anatomy lead to value differences and then further to social differences. People migrate from one region to another, or from one country to another, and there is a great deal of physical movement in today’s globalized world, and people acquire multicultural and multiracial identities and take a postmodern perspective on race as a social category that is fluid and flexible, just like gender. Race can be treated as an identity that is not biologically determined but socially constructed according to a postmodern thinking. Recent discussions on cultural appropriation, misappropriation, and appreciation are shedding light on race issues in the fashion industry, and increasing controversial debates on cultural borrowing indicate that some minority groups feel that they “own” their cultures, and that they should not be easily borrowed by others, especially white people (Kawamura 2022). This means that racial boundaries are still very much in existence and intact in everyday life and people’s mind. While designers who challenge the gender binary and suggest a nonconforming identity are often praised and complimented in the media as forward, liberal, and progressive, those who had made an attempt to go beyond racial and ethnic boundaries to incorporate non-Western ideas taken from other cultures are criticized and accused of appropriation. Is race as a social category different from a gender category? Postmodern interpretations of social identities bring up important and thought-provoking questions to the surface.

Conclusion By observing the placement of fashion within different theoretical frameworks, we understand better what fashion means sociologically. Conceptions of fashion vary widely. Fashion can be treated as a form of social regulation or control, a

Sociological Discourse and Empirical Studies

45

hierarchy, a social custom, a social process, and more. Attempts to understand the dynamics of fashion have been mostly dominated by variants of imitation theory that start with the presumption that fashion is an essentially hierarchical phenomenon prescribed by some identifiable sartorial authority. Sartorial power is most often conceived as residing with some dominant social group or class whose decisions on what is fashionable are then emulated by successive layers of the social hierarchy. Imitation from below induces a pressure on social superiors to display their superiority by further sartorial refinement and innovation in order to distinguish themselves from their inferiors who have adopted their earlier styles. A potentially unending cycle of imitation and innovation is set up. If early sociological work on fashion can best be analyzed through the concept of imitation, contemporary work is far too diverse to allow any such generalization. This is precisely because the definitions and meanings of fashion have multiplied. Fashion discourse has spread to various academic disciplines and has become overtly interdisciplinary. Recent postmodern interpretations of gender and race in relation to fashion also bring up important questions that demand continuing debates and dialogues.

Guide to Further Reading Chandler, Kristy (1995), “Race, Gender, and Peremptory Challenge: A Postmodern Feminist Approach,” Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 7:1, 173–93. Dhoest, Alexander, Steven Malliet, Jacques Haers, and Barbara Segaer (eds.) (2015), The Borders of Subculture: Resistance and the Mainstream, London: Routledge. Elferen, Isabella Van, and Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock (2015), Goth Music: From Sound to Subculture, London: Routledge. Haenfler, Ross (2012), Goths, Gamers and Grrrls, London: Bloomsbury. Lunning, French (2013), Fetish Style, London: Bloomsbury. Luvaas, Brent (2016), Street Style: An Ethnography of Fashion Blogging, London: Bloomsbury. Sklar, Monica (2012), Punk Style, London: Bloomsbury.

46

3 FASHION AS AN INSTITUTIONALIZED SYSTEM: FROM PARIS TO THE MEDIATIZED WORLD

As indicated in the reviews of the classical and contemporary discourse and various empirical studies of fashion in the previous chapters, fashion is commonly attached to clothes and appearances, and therefore, visual documents are frequently used as evidence because many writers treat fashion as a material object. Thus, it becomes difficult or almost impossible to separate fashion from clothing. I provide a different approach to fashion, that is, fashion as an institutionalized system. I align my investigation primarily with Crane’s several empirical studies on the fashion industry and designers in Paris, New York, and London (1997a, 1997b, 2000), which are used as the points of departure from where I can start and narrow my observation. Davis’s (1992) discussion on fashion as a system as well as the literature on sociology of the arts and culture (Becker 1982; White and White 1965 [1993]; Wolff 1983, 1993; Zolberg 1990) have also been used to understand fashion as a cultural symbol, as noted in the previous chapter. Barthes’s semiotic analysis (1967) makes us aware of the clothing system and helps us develop the concept of an institutionalized system with the concept of and the practice of fashion. In this chapter, I will give an overview of fashion as a system and the theoretical underpinnings of Fashion-ology and explain how fashion can be studied empirically as an institution or an institutionalized system in which individuals related to fashion, including designers among many other fashion professionals, engage in activities collectively, share the same belief in fashion, and participate together in producing and perpetuating not only the ideology of fashion but also fashion culture, which is sustained by the continuous production of fashion. The

48Fashion-ology

production process of fashion must be clearly distinguished from that of clothing because clothing does not immediately convert into fashion. Fashion-ology mainly discusses the production of fashion, but it does not preclude consumption of fashion because production and consumption are complementary as we will see in the subsequent chapter. As Finkelstein notes (1996: 6), it would be misleading to think of fashion only in regard to clothing since there are other considerations, which take the idea of fashion beyond material goods. Similarly, Koenig (1973: 40) states that we must destroy the widely held prejudice that fashion is only concerned with the outer cover of the human being in dress, jewelry, and ornamentation. Since it is a general social institution, it affects and shapes individuals and society as a whole. Therefore, those discussions of fashion that focus exclusively on the study or the history of dress are inadequate (40), and the study of fashion as a system, or Fashion-ology, entails a different analytical framework.

Theoretical Framework of Fashion-ology Fashion-ology integrates both micro and macro levels of social theories, that is, symbolic interactionism and structural functionalism, because we focus on a macrosociological analysis of the social organization of fashion as well as a microinteractionist analysis of designers and individuals involved in producing fashion. There are many interpretations of fashion, and I add another perspective to it by viewing it as an institutionalized system. This is unlike those approaches to fashion that focus on styles of dress and clothing. There is a lack of attention to the social context of the institutional development of fashion, and that is what Fashion-ology attempts to address. The sociological study of fashion can expose many of the extra-aesthetic elements involved in aesthetic judgment and functions served by the institutions of fashion. A structural-functional perspective of fashion includes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, which are intimately related. A society cannot distribute what it does not produce and cannot produce without distributing. In addition, the capacity to produce is greatly influenced by the pattern of distribution that motivates the members of society and distributes skills and opportunities. This analysis is an attempt to establish causal connections between standardized, repetitive patterns of social life and their consequences. In Merton’s formulations of a structural-functional perspective (1957), functions or dysfunctions can be attributed only to standardized items such as social roles, institutional patterns, and social structures, where “standardized” means patterned and repetitive. This means that single events cannot be made the subject of functional analysis. This is applicable to the institutions of fashion that are found in cities where fashion culture is found. Fashion shows, which are

Fashion as an Institutionalized System

49

organized at least twice a year and are controlled by trade associations, are used as the means to mobilize those who are involved in the production and distribution of fashion. Moreover, Merton’s distinction between manifest and latent functions further clarifies functional analysis (1957). Manifest functions are the consequences people observe or expect, while latent functions are the consequences that are neither recognized nor intended. While Parsons (1968) emphasizes the manifest functions of social behavior, Merton pays particular attention to the latent functions of things and the increased understanding of society that functionalist analysis can bring by uncovering them. The distinction forces sociologists to go beyond the reasons individuals give for their actions or for the existence of customs and institutions. For example, Merton (1957) cites Veblen’s analysis of conspicuous consumption and explains that the latent function of conspicuous consumption is the enhancement of one’s status. One of the purposes of fashion shows is to show new styles to journalists, editors, and buyers. But the unintended consequence of those events is that the site of mobilization confirms that that is where fashion emerges from. This contributes to adding value to clothing and transforming it into fashion although this happens only in people’s minds. In this way, fashion culture continues and is sustained. In turn, it attracts designers to the city that everyone believes is the fashion capital, and thus fashion survives and the city remains influential. Functional analysis should also specify the mechanisms or processes by which consequences occur and alternative arrangements by which functions can be achieved. Functional alternatives are limited by structural constraints. A process or mechanism that has consequences in one structural context may not have the same consequences in another. Thus, merely organizing a fashion show does not make a city the fashion center. Paris, in particular, has historically been making efforts to maintain its image so that the city continues to be the fashion capital. Structural functionalists explain that sociology should only be concerned with social structures that determine the characteristics and actions of individuals whose agency or special characteristics become unimportant. Durkheim was an early exponent of this position. Functionalists often adopt this view, being concerned simply with the functional relationships between social structures. We must also investigate the conditions in which the designer is acclaimed as talented and gifted. By participating in fashion-related events, already known designers confirm their status and reputation, and the new ones seek to be discovered by the gatekeepers who represent major magazines and newspapers. In contrast to macro approaches to fashion, symbolic interactionists advocate the method that looks at the processes by which individuals define the world from the inside and at the same time identify their world of objects. The various techniques utilized in this phase are: directly observing (both participant and

50Fashion-ology

nonparticipant), interviewing people, listening to conversations and to radio and television, reading local newspapers and periodicals, securing life-history accounts, reading letters and diaries, and consulting public records. One must attain close and full familiarity with the world one is examining. Blumer’s major contribution to symbolic interactionism has been his elaboration on the methodology of symbolic interactionism, and he showed that, unlike functionalism, symbolic interactionism is not a deductive theory that begins with a set of hypotheses. He used the method to study fashion (1969b). Symbolic interactionists are primarily concerned with explaining individuals’ particular decisions and actions and with demonstrating the impossibility of explaining these by predetermined rules and external forces. Most of the analysis is of small-scale interpersonal relationships, and individuals are viewed as active constructors of their own conduct who interpret, evaluate, define, and map out their own action, rather than as passive beings who are impinged upon by outside forces. Symbolic interactionism also stresses the processes by which the individual makes decisions and forms opinions. One can interview designers and fashion professionals to investigate their relationships with the fashion organization and institutions and how they interact with other fashion professionals in the same institutional and individual networks. An important debate in sociological theory concerns the relationship between individuals and social structures. The debate revolves around the problem of how structures determine what individuals do, how structures are created, and what are the limits, if any, on individuals’ capacities to act independently of structural constraints; what are the limits, in other words, on human agency. Wolff explains the connection: “The artist, as cultural producer, then, has a place in the sociology or art. It is no longer necessary for sociological analysis to have to choose whether to give priority to ‘action’ or to ‘structure,’ or to argue about voluntarism or determinism … we have to operate with a model which posits the mutual interdependence of structure and agency” (1993: 138). As we look at how the institutions of fashion function and the individuals involved in fashion participate in those institutions, the system of fashion becomes much clearer, and at the same time, we can understand how the two are interdependent and interrelated.

Fashion as a Myth Supported by the System The primary focus of Fashion-ology is, therefore, an institutionalized system of fashion. To analyze fashion as a system, we must look for its systemic characteristics, the kinds of workers it involves, and the tasks each worker does. Fashion is a system of institutions, organizations, groups, producers, events,

Fashion as an Institutionalized System

51

and practices, all of which contribute to the making of fashion, which is different from dress or clothing. It is the structural nature of the system that affects the legitimation process of designers’ creativity. A systemic differentiation can be made between clothes and fashion which are two independent, autonomous entities. As noted earlier, fashion is a manufactured cultural symbol in an institutionalized system. Institutional factors in the social process of the making of a designer must also be examined. Although designers play an important role in the system, we should not neglect other fashion-related occupational groups in the system, such as journalists and publicists among many others. Strictly speaking, Fashion-ology does not directly include the discussion of the production process and the details of the garments since they are included in the study of clothing and dress. When I say that fashion is an ideology, I do not mean in a Marxist aesthetics sense, locating the works of the designers in the social and political environment. An ideology is a myth, and it may be defined as a set of beliefs, attitudes, and opinions all of which can be tightly or loosely related. Ideology constitutes any set of beliefs, and whether they are true or false is not relevant for it to exist. All beliefs are socially determined in some way or another although there is no assumption that any one factor is more important or true. Fashion as a myth has no scientific and concrete substance. The function of myth is essentially cognitive, namely to account for the fundamental conceptual categories of the mind. It embodies collective experiences and represents the collective conscience, and this is how the myth continues. While traditional anthropology was concerned with the study of myths in primitive society, the structural analysis of myth has also been applied to modern industrial societies. For instance, Barthes (1964) treats myths as a system of communications, consisting not only of written discourses, but also the products of cinema, sport, photography, advertising, and television. Likewise, social institutions and practices construct the fashion myth. Understanding fashion as a system helps us demystify the belief in fashion and also analyze “the mysterious dictates of the fashion capital Paris” (Flugel 1930: 147). Flugel remarks: Fashion, we have been brought up to believe (and generations of writers in the myriad of journals have contributed to this belief), is a mysterious goddess, whose decrees it is our duty to obey rather than to understand; for indeed, it is implied, these decrees transcend all ordinary human understanding. We know not why they are made, or how long they will endure, but only that they must be followed; and that the quicker the obedience the greater is the merit. (1930: 137) It was always the French kings, queens, and aristocrats who initiated fashion trends that subsequently trickled down to the masses and spread to other parts

52Fashion-ology

of Europe. The latest fashions were found in Paris, and foreigners and Parisians made pilgrimages to the source of Paris fashions (Steele 1988: 27). A fashion-ological approach to fashion can also provide the answer to the fickleness of fashion. Laver explained fashion’s irrationality and superficial tendencies as follows: “Pleasures of vicissitude” adds to the enjoyment of life. Fads, crazes, fashion moods and fashion follies within the fashion of the day bring short lived amusement. People who always do the same things and wear the same clothes, are themselves bored and make them boring for others. Every fashion is in existence for a certain period of time and nobody knows exactly when or why its popularity suddenly arises and then almost as quickly as it came, fades away. (1950: 66) An empirical study on fashion as a system shows the distinction between clothing and fashion and that fashion is not created in a vacuum. The differences between the two can be clearly drawn as follows (Kawamura 2004: 1): Clothing is material production while fashion is symbolic production. Clothing is tangible while fashion is intangible. Clothing is a necessity while fashion is an excess. Clothing has a utility function while fashion has a status function. Clothing is found in any society or culture where people clothe themselves while fashion must be institutionally constructed and culturally diffused. A fashion system operates to convert clothing into fashion that has a symbolic value and is manifested through clothing. In explaining the labeling process of deviance, Becker (1982) says that social definitions create reality, and therefore, sociologists need to ask, in the same manner, who is entitled to label things as fashion or fashionable. We need only observe which members of the fashion system are treated as capable of doing that. Some occupy institutional positions that allow them to decide what will be acceptable and fashionable. As far as French fashion is concerned, it is the members of the trade organization.1 Based on White and White’s study (1965 [1993]) on the French Impressionists and Becker’s analysis of the art world (1982), fashion can be examined as a system composed of various institutions. These institutions together reproduce the image of fashion and perpetuate the culture of fashion in major fashion cities, such as Paris, New York, London, and Milan. My empirical study (Kawamura 2004) of French fashion indicates that fashion as a system first emerged in Paris in 1868 with the institutionalization of exclusive custom-made clothes known as Haute Couture. The system consists of a number of subsystems comprised of a network of designers, manufacturers, wholesalers, public relations officers,

Fashion as an Institutionalized System

53

journalists, and advertising agencies. The fashion industry is not simply concerned with the production of adequate or pleasant clothing but is also concerned with the production of new stylistic innovations that satisfy the image of fashion. Similarly, in the case of the art world, it consists of artists, producers, museum directors, museum-goers, theater-goers, reporters for newspapers, critics for publications of all sorts, art historians, art theorists, and philosophers of art among others, and they keep the machinery of the art world working and thereby provide for its continuing existence (Dickie quoted in Becker 1982: 150). Fashion-ology suggests that any item of clothing is capable of being appreciated and can be turned into fashion. Not every attempt to label something as fashion may be successful, but there is nothing more to making something fashion than christening or legitimating it. It is the institutions of fashion that do that. The designers must be recognized by other participants in the cooperative activities through which their works are produced and consumed by others.

Different Approaches to Fashion Systems I will first explain the different approaches to a fashion system before introducing a fashion-ological approach to fashion since many writers of fashion and/or dress refer to the term “fashion system” although what they mean and their definitions may vary. Some define a fashion system by separating it from a clothing manufacturing system while others use the term in a very loose way and make no distinction between the two systems. For Leopold (1993: 101), a fashion system takes part in the clothing production process. A fashion system is the interrelationship between highly fragmented forms of production and equally diverse and often volatile patterns of demand. She argues that fashion incorporates dual concepts of fashion as both a cultural phenomenon and as an aspect of manufacturing, with the accent on production technology. She emphasizes the important role of clothing production and its history in creating fashion and dismisses the argument, unlike Blumer (1969a), that consumer demand determines the creation of fashion. While McCraken demonstrates that the language-product comparison is unsound, Barthes (1967) and Lurie (1981)2 use linguistics systems in parallel to fashion systems to explain fashion and clothing. They treat the two as the same or as interchangeable concepts. Clothing can be used as a metaphor. This has been criticized by many fashion writers as clothing and fashion cannot be used for communication as accurately as the language we speak. Such an approach to fashion and dress is very limited and does not expand further. Both of them base their semiotic analyses of clothing and fashion on structural linguistics, initiated by Ferdinand de Saussure (1972). Saussure’s theory of signs, known as semiology, helps us in making the distinction between clothing and fashion.

54Fashion-ology

Despite the title of the book The Fashion System (1967), Barthes is not talking about a fashion system but a clothing system. One can use his complex analysis in finding a distinction between the fashion system and the clothing system. The clothing system teaches us how to wear garments and what to wear in specific social and cultural contexts because each context has different social meanings. There are rules about what Western clothes must look like. We have learnt through socialization that a shirt usually has two sleeves or a pair of pants has two legs. Similarly, there are conventions that we take for granted as far as stylistic coordination is concerned. These conventions are unwritten laws or “folkways” as Sumner terms them, and these sartorial conventions make a clothing system. The standard clothing system for Western clothes helps us see the deviations from that system although the clothing system does not explain the fashion system. Roach and Musa (1980) make a distinction between a simple and a complex fashion system, which is a system in modern society. They refer to, for example, the fashion system among the Tiv of Nigeria, in which types of scars used for beautification change from generation to generation (1980: 20). In this fashion system, scar designs and techniques are devised, copied, popularized, abandoned, and replaced by others on the basis of person-to-person contact. A simple fashion system is found in small-scale, premodern societies. On the other hand, a system can be as complex as that in so-called fashion cities, such as Paris, New York, and Milan, and this system involves thousands of people, such as designers, assistant designers, stylists, manufacturers of textiles, garments, buttons, and cosmetics, wholesalers, retail buyers, publicists, advertisers, and fashion photographers among many other fashion professionals. Similarly, Blumer (1969a) also uses the term “fashion system.” He analyzes the functions of fashion as a social mechanism, particularly its integrating functions within industrial society, where a highly intricate fashion system has developed. He does not use dress or clothing to describe the nature of the twentieth-century fashion systems, but he adds that dress is only one aspect of life that fashion affects. Blumer has contributed a theory of fashion appropriate to contemporary mass society. He sees the fashion system as a complex means for facilitating orderly change within a mass society no longer able to provide identity and maintain order via social custom. Davis (1992) also distinguishes clothing from fashion systems although he does not elaborate on the clothing system in particular. He said: “The core image of an innovating center, archetypically Paris with its highly developed haute couture establishment, surrounded by sociologically sedimented and differentially receptive bands of fashion consumers … remained securely in place” (1992: 200). His usage means to point to the more or less established practices of the complex institutions, such as design, display, manufacture, distribution, and sales, that process fashion as they make their way from creators

Fashion as an Institutionalized System

55

to consumers. However, Davis does not elaborate on the internal structure of this system, the processes that creators and consumers go through, or the roles they play within the system. Koenig consciously separates fashion from dress and clothing. Fashion is not only about what we wear and consume. Koenig states: We … distinguish between the socio-psychological, structural form of fashion as a social regulator in its own right and its various and forever variable contents. This also implies that we take fashion completely seriously as an independent social institution … This approach to fashion also means that, unlike the many fashion writers in the daily papers, journals, illustrated weeklies and magazines, we do not want to pronounce judgment on various fashions. As we have already pointed, our real invention is to analyse the “system of fashion.” This also means keeping a certain distance from the fashion of the day one will succumb to it and automatically be caught in the dialectical whirlpool of its infinite variations. (1973: 38–9) Craik also employs the term fashion system: While western elite designer fashion constitutes one system, it is by no means exclusive nor does it determine all other systems. Just as fashion systems may be periodised from the late Middle Ages until the present … so too contemporary fashion systems may be recast as an array of competing and inter-meshing systems cutting across western and non-western cultures. (1994: 6) Craik’s usage of the fashion system implies that there was a fashion system in the Middle Ages. I argue that clothing systems are found in Western and nonWestern societies but not fashion systems. Fashion became institutionalized for the first time in mid-nineteenth-century France although fashion as a practice was evident in France during the reign of Louis XIV. Entwistle (2000) also points out that a specific system of dress originated in the West although her emphasis is on the connections between the body, fashion, and dress. On the other hand, McCraken (1988) argues that imitation became possible due to the advent of a fashion system, but at the same time, there was the loss of symbols, and with this loss, there was the drive to create more innovation. He indicates different values emerging with the arrival of the fashion system and the end of patina as a means of controlling status expression. The system enabled status misrepresentations and deceptions, and it deprived the elite groups of their privilege, and they were now forced continually to adopt new fashions to recreate the distinction patina had previously supplied them. They were now, in a more than figurative sense of the phrase, the prisoners of fashion (40).

56Fashion-ology

The assignment of a new status meant that one could turn income into status immediately and one did not have to wait over many generations to make an object a patina. This allowed the status system to incorporate the upwardly mobile and also allowed it to reward those who had proven themselves worthy of advancement. It also encouraged new mobility and the recognition of ability. The patina strategy had served the cause of relative rigidity, fixity, and immobility, and it was the fashion system that served the cause of mobility (McCraken 1988: 40– 41). Therefore, for McCraken, a fashion system began long before my definition of a fashion system (Kawamura 2004) that began in 1868, when the structural relationship between a designer/couturier and a client was reversed. I began my empirical research (Kawamura 2004) from where Davis left off, exploring the institutions within the fashion system in France, which, according to my analysis, is the prototype of the system in general. Davis’s analysis of the fashion system (1992) was used as a point of departure. I treat fashion as an institutional system, that is, a persistent network of beliefs, customs, and formal procedures that together form an articulated social organization with an acknowledged central purpose (White and White 1965 [1993]). No matter what its size, a fashion system seems to have certain basic features. The minimum requirement is a network of people that includes those who introduce or propose changes in dress and those who adopt at least a portion of the proposed changes. The proposers and adopters in this network must be in communication with each other, either directly on a person-to-person basis or indirectly through mass communication.

The Beginning of the Fashion System Unraveling the mysteries of the evolving fashion system that reached out both nationally and internationally became a challenge (Roach-Higgins and Eicher 1973: 28). There are conditions necessary for a fashion system to exist and operate, and those are: a multilevel open-class system, within which more than one class is able to participate in fashion change in dress; the possibility of mobility from one class to the next; and the presence of competition between at least two classes. In addition, change and novelty must be positively valued within the cultural group in question. If stability rather than change is highly valued, the rapid replacement of one form of dress with another, as fashion change implies, is unlikely to be perceived as desirable. Then, fashion does not develop. It is not easy to specify a point in time in the history of Western dress when a fashion system can be said to have begun. Roach-Higgins (1995) explains that visible, short-term changes in some elements of dress likely date back to whenever humans living in groups produced a surplus in economic resources and were, therefore, able to make choices in dress that went beyond the

Fashion as an Institutionalized System

57

absolute minimum for ensuring physical survival. If variations in dress elements were devised by one or more members of the group and consequently adopted by others for a limited time, then we could say that the fundamental idea of a fashion system existed. Scholars generally recognize the fourteenth century as a time when workers in costume crafts, merchants, and eager customers, both an aristocracy and a wealthy bourgeoisie, clearly portrayed the kinds of social behavior associated with fashion, behavior from which the highly complex fashion system of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has evolved (395–6). Bell (1947 [1976]) coined the term “micro-fashions” to recognize the existence of the relatively minor types of fashion change that may have taken place in the ancient civilizations of China, Rome, Byzantine, and Egypt. He hypothesized a beginning for the Western fashion system as early as the time of the first crusades, and he asserted that during the 700 years that separated the first crusade in 1096 from the French Revolution, fashion accelerated while slowly gathering momentum. Boucher (1967 [1987]) is more specific and associates the beginning of an identifiable Western fashion system with the fourteenth century. We favor the use of this date since a noticeable acceleration in the rate of change in dress had taken place by this time. This acceleration can be associated with the accumulated influence of a number of factors. These factors include a specialization in crafts associated with textile and apparel production; a decline of the feudal system; and the development of a court system associated with a principality or state; and growing international interdependencies that required intricate economic and political strategies in defense of national interests. This is also the beginning of the Western dress. The fashion system provided the means whereby unique features of the Western dress could be developed and distributed. It is assumed that a fashion system emerged with the phenomenon of fashion, and therefore, they are synonymous. In defining a fashion system, as we noted earlier, the minimum requirements for its existence are someone who produces a fashion in dress and someone who consumes it; this concept accurately depicts the self-perpetuating nature of the fashion system. In societies characterized by an elaborate division of labor, the development of a complex system of interdependent, specialized roles for accomplishing the designing, producing, distributing, and consuming of dress is possible. In Kawamura (2004), the fashion phenomenon is separated from a fashion system; that is, the modern system that began in 1868 with the institutionalization of fashion.

Fashion Production as Collective Activity Clothing production and fashion production are both collective activities that require large numbers of people to produce the finished product. While clothing

58Fashion-ology

production manufactures garments, fashion production perpetuates the belief in fashion. Therefore, the processes and institutions that they go through are separate. Clothing production involves the actual manufacturing process of the material clothing on the one hand. On the other, fashion production involves those who help construct the idea of fashion. Furthermore, treating fashion as a collective product is a broader task, which refers to aspects of cultural production, which do not feature in the immediate making of the work. Although fashion is not about clothing, without it, fashion cannot exist. They are neither mutually inclusive nor are they mutually exclusive. There is a clear division of labor among those who produce a garment. Just as painters depend on manufacturers for canvas, stretchers, paint, and brushes, dealers, collectors, and museum curators for exhibition space and financial support, and on critics and aestheticians for the rationale for what they do (Becker 1982: 13), thread manufacturers work with textile manufactures to produce textiles that will be selected, bought, and used by apparel manufacturers. The fashion designers work in the center of a network of cooperating people, all of whose work is essential to the final outcome. Fashion designers at the apparel firms work with assistant designers, sample cutters, sample makers, production patternmakers, and then factories to finalize the garments. Trimmings and button suppliers are also involved. Those individuals are indispensable for the execution of the garments, but they are different from fashion producers. For the garment to be appreciated, accepted, and legitimated as fashion, it has to go through a different process and mechanism. Similarly, there is a group of people, whom I call fashion professionals, who make a contribution to not only the production but also to the gatekeeping and distribution of fashion. As noted earlier, change is the essence of fashion, and therefore, as RoachHiggins notes, awareness of change by members of a collectivity is a requisite for fashion (1995: 394). Their collective recognition, acceptance, and use of a particular form of dress, which they eventually replace with another form, makes it a fashion. Fashion is a social -regulating system in its own right and differs from other regulating systems (such as those of habit, custom, convention, morality, and the law) only in degree, not in essence (Roach-Higgins and Eicher 1973: 31– 2). In a society where change in cultural forms is very slow—taking several generations or even centuries—fashion is not a social reality; for members of the society, the collectivity, do not recognize and consciously share the experience of change, let alone promote it. If changeability is an integral part of the fashion phenomenon, there is fashion in the system of Japanese kimonos or the system of Indian saris. However, non-Western ethnographical case studies of the way people dress often use the term “dress,” “cultural/ethnic dress,” or “costume,” rather than “fashion” because fashion is not only about change, but also an institutionalized, systematic change produced by those who are authorized to implement it. That kind of fashion system is found, at least for now, only in the

Fashion as an Institutionalized System

59

West. Without a system that includes a diffusion mechanism, any style of dress is confined within its own system of clothing. There is a whole network of people involved in clothing production and fashion production. The tasks and individuals involved in clothing production are different from those in fashion production.

Empirical Study: The French Fashion System as a Prototype I argue that fashion systems exist only in specific types of cities where fashion is structurally organized. Drawing on these writers’ notion of fashion as a system, I apply that concept to my understanding of the larger spectrum of fashion, that is, the system that produces fashion designers, who in turn, along with other fashion professionals, perpetuate the culture of fashion. In my analysis, I employ the term fashion system to describe organizations, institutions, and individuals interacting with one another and to legitimate fashion designers and their creativity. The term does not describe the process of sewing clothes, which belongs to a separate kind of system, that is, the clothing or manufacturing system. However, one cannot understand fashion without referring to clothes, and an analysis of the designers’ designs and styles is inevitable. If the essence of fashion is mutability (Delpierre 1997), then how is this mutability or change brought about? Is there a logic behind continuous change or is it a natural phenomenon? Does change occur naturally, irrationally, and irregularly? How does a style become fashion? The change has been systematically produced and institutionally conducted, and will continue to be if any fashion center chooses to maintain its hegemony. There is an interplay among fashion as a concept, a practice, and a system. Becker explains the sociological perspective of art worlds: All artistic work, like all human activity, involves the joint activity of a number, often a large number, of people. Through their cooperation, the art work we eventually see or hear comes to be and continues to be … The existence of art worlds, as well as the way their existence affects both the production and consumption of art works, suggests sociological approach to the arts. It is not an approach that produces aesthetic judgments, although that is a task many sociologists of art have set for themselves. It produces, instead, an understanding of the complexity of the cooperative networks through which art happens. (1982: 1) We need to think of the activities that must be carried out for any work to appear as it finally does. In order for a garment to take some physical form, it has to go through the manufacturing process of the garment.

60Fashion-ology

The French fashion trade organization plays a pivotal role within this system and has been instrumental in creating institutions that control the mobilization process of fashion professionals and organize fashion events and activities in Paris. Kawamura (2004) places this trade organization at the core of her empirical analysis and elaborates the institutional network among organizations and individuals, as well as examining the structural conditions influencing the decisions of gatekeepers in the system of fashion. Fashion is very much the product of a chain of a great many individual decisions made by people interconnected within the various niches in the industry. My case studies of Japanese designers in Paris3 (2004) show how they destroyed the traditional Western clothing system and invented a new system while remaining within the traditional fashion system that is the French establishment. Clothes and fashion are two separate sociological concepts and systems, because the concept of fashion encompasses more than clothes. The French fashion system consists of different organizations with a hierarchy among those who design clothes: Haute Couture, Prêt-à-Porter for women, and Prêt-à-Porter for men. Entries into these organizations are exclusive and difficult. The more exclusive the inclusion becomes, the more valuable the membership is. Haute Couture was not simply a group of fashion houses, but a network of subcontractors and suppliers who make all the hats, the gloves, the stockings, the corsets, the shoes, the handbags, the jewelry, the buckles, the belts, and the buttons. There are the embroiderers, the makeup artists, and the hairdressers in addition to all the representatives of the textile companies. They are also considered exclusive as they cater not only to ordinary designers but also to “couturiers.” One can look at other fashion systems in major fashion cities, such as London, New York, Milan, and Tokyo, and make comparisons among them to investigate the differences and the similarities. The extent to which every fashion organization centralizes or decentralizes its authority of fashion can be researched. There is an unofficial couture group in Italy that is not acknowledged as a legitimate organization but which may have contributed in initiating the fashion organization for ready-to-wear, and not for custom-made clothes, similar to that of the French. Every fashion center has a trade organization, but the one in New York does not make its membership as exclusive as that in Paris. Organization is the key factor in the process of institutionalizing, and at the same time it is part of structuring cultural industry. It will be worthwhile to further investigate the role that the French government plays in maintaining the French hegemony of fashion, Haute Couture in particular, through, for instance, the apprenticeship system, loan structure, and pricing of exclusive garments. Within the larger context, connections among other types of organizations, such as art, music, or literary organizations, can be made because the comparisons

Fashion as an Institutionalized System

61

bring out distinct points about fashion. Moreover, key players and key relations within each organization and system of fashion have to be examined.

The Institutionalization of French Fashion Institutions provide the means and context through which elites exercise power. Fashion professionals become powerful and dominant through the control of major social institutions. Extraordinary centralization of power allows control over many people and resources. The actions of these institutions and the decisions of fashion professionals in Paris have extensive consequences. The French fashion system has autonomous power on a global scale, and it works to maintain its hegemony. The institutional arrangements give advantages to some groups over others and reinforce the hierarchical structure among designers. Given that different groups within society are affected differently by social arrangements, designers’ participation in the system affects their economic, social, and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984). Unlike Karl Marx, who traced all power relations back to the means of production, that is, economic capital, Bourdieu argues that there are three fundamental types of capital. Economic capital involves command over economic resources. Social capital commands relationships, networks of influence, and support into which individuals can tap by virtue of their social position. Cultural capital explains the way in which both tastes and perceptions of what is beautiful or valuable, and social groups are ranked in society. Using cultural capital, according to Bourdieu (1984), the elites constantly distance themselves from the non-elites. Economic, social, and cultural capital are the objects and the weapons of a competitive struggle between different groups and/ or among individuals within the group. There is social and cultural reproduction and fluidity over time of the system. Admission into the French fashion system grants both social capital and economic capital that separate the elite designers from the non-elites outside the system, that is, designers of mass-produced apparel. Designers fight over these resources, which may eventually lead to economic capital. Furthermore, how designers perform within the system affects their sociocultural position in France and overseas and the possibility of transforming their name into a symbolic trademark worldwide. Designers need to earn symbolic capital for their products for those consumers who wish to share that capital to differentiate themselves from those with whom they do not wish to identify. For Bourdieu (1984), “symbolic capital” is essentially economic or cultural capital that is acknowledged and recognized, and then tends to reinforce the power relations, which constitute the structure of social space. The symbolic value of goods is realized whenever people engage in consumption and thereby express their social identity. The French fashion system first provides designers the symbolic capital and then allows them to convert that symbolic capital into economic capital. Recognition that groups participate in social arrangements

62Fashion-ology

that put them at an advantage suggests the importance of the domination of some groups of designers in Paris. Therefore, acceptance by the system places the designer within the system of stratification.

The Decentralization of Fashion Geography from Paris to the World The power structure within the fashion system has shifted a few times over the past centuries. First, it was the women from wealthy classes that controlled the fashion trends while those involved in the production of clothes, such as dressmakers and tailors, had no social significance. Then, toward the mid- to the end of the nineteenth century, the power relationship between the couturier/ designer and the consumer/wearer was reversed by Worth, and the qualified designers rather than the upper-class women were the ones who initiated the latest styles (Kawamura 2004). As indicated in other chapters in this edition, it is now the consumers or anyone who feels passionate about fashion and possesses the same power who produce fashion. The top-down model for fashion diffusion that existed in the classical discourse of fashion has lessened, and as the structure of society has begun to change, and with the advent of technology, fashion information has spread from various sources through multiple media at an amazingly fast pace. Paris, the fashion capital with its own legitimate gatekeepers, is no longer the only place that we look to for finding fashionable items. The sources of fashion are diverse, as indicated in Chapter 6, and a growing number of younger designers worldwide are emerging out of street culture and designing distinct street and subcultural fashions. Social media has resulted in the decentering of fashion cities while giving more opportunities to other less known regions and is reshaping the fashion map. The social significance of fashion shows in the major fashion centers that formed a crucial component in gaining recognition as a designer has been declining since it is no longer the only diffusion strategy. Rocamora discusses the decentering of a network of fashion cities, which the printed press almost exclusively focuses on (2013: 159). In the fashion blogosphere, the geography of fashion has been decentered but so has the geography of fashion tastemakers. Indeed, where until recently the sole influential fashion media intermediaries were those fashion journalists, stylists and photographers linked to established titles such as Vogue, Harpers or Elle and avant-garde niche magazines, such as Purple or Pop, the rise of the fashion blogosphere has resulted in the coming to prominence and growing influence of individuals who had no institutional affiliation to the field of fashion when they started their blog. (Rocamora 2013: 159)

Fashion as an Institutionalized System

63

In the French media, fashion still means Paris, and regularly anchoring fashion to the Parisian territory, the media have long naturalized the signifying relation between the French capital and fashion (Rocamora 2009: 66–7), and the interplay between fashion branding the city and city-branding fashion (84) is now being threatened by a new digital era that provides a new fashion system with a new gatekeeping mechanism. The mainstream fashion system that used to be absolute and with the power to legitimate and acknowledge what fashion is or should be is quickly losing its significance and authority as Rocamora “remarks that a recurring theme in the French media is that of the crisis of Paris high fashion and the challenges to the city’s ability to hold onto this coveted title” (2009: 77). Other cities, such as New York, London, and Milan, are also losing their hegemonic statuses as fashion cities, and the internet is one of the major reasons. Individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions that are accustomed to their old traditional ways with their own privileges do not welcome anything that is new since it jeopardizes whatever they have and changes the existing structural hierarchy. But after all, fashion is supposed to be all about novelty and consists of a group of neophilias, who chase newness (Kawamura 2018).

The Impact of Technology in the Changing Fashion Systems Technology has inevitably influenced the operational structure and the organizational mechanism of the apparel industries and fashion cultures around the world in terms of production, consumption, and diffusion. Fashion is said to have been born in Europe during the fourteenth century, and it has gone through some key historical moments, particularly during the Industrial Revolution, which speeded up fashion cycles and the democratization process (Breward and Evans 2005; Wilson 1985). We can go back to the Industrial Revolution to see the social influence of technology for clothing production. The sewing machine, which was first invented in France by the tailor Thimonnier, then refined by Elias Howe in 1846, and perfected by Isaac Singer in 1851, revolutionized the garment-making industry in the United States and Europe (Boucher 1967 [1987]: 358). Clothes were formerly made and stitched by hand and were not machine made. Sewing machines became widely used in the French ready-to-wear clothing industry after the 1860s (Coffin 1996), and the sewing machine converted clothes-making into a proper factory system by the late nineteenth century, and they further accelerated the democratization process of fashion and clothes. The decorative edgings and ruffles that used to be handmade, were very time consuming, and were a significant part of a dress at the time, could now be constructed by machines. A lot of the hand stitching and handwork were replaced by the

64Fashion-ology

machine. And if the styles were altered, remodeling could be done more quickly and efficiently at the factory or at home (Tortora 2015: 120–1). Similar to the structure of occupational positions in fashion, a production between the machine and the hand was clearly distinguished, each with a specific social status. However, Bolton has a different perspective on machine-made and handmade productions that many scholars see as two polar opposite systems, and since the Industrial Revolution, the opposition between the two has played out in every sphere of artistic production, and no more so than in fashion (2013: 9). Bolton argues that the sewing machine and other methods of mass production facilitated the development of Haute Couture as a separate category within the culture of fashion. Charles Frederick Worth (1825–1895), one of the most popular couturiers at the time, relied on the sewing machine to produce their clothes on an international scale (Bolton 2016: 9). Producing hundreds and thousands of elaborate couture dresses could not have been possible without the sewing machine’s invention. In fact, Worth used standard patterns for basic pieces, such as skirts and sleeves, similar to ready-to-wear since they could be altered and reconfigured in different shapes. At the Manus x Machina: Fashion in an Age of Technology exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bolton made an attempt to show that in this age, the technical separation between Haute Couture and Prêt-à-Porter is becoming less definitive and more permeable through the shared usage of hand techniques and mechanical technologies. The convergence of the handmade and the machine made in both Haute Couture and Prêt-à-Porter not only challenges traditional assumptions about both institutions but also, more importantly, pushes the potential of fashion in previously unforeseen and unimaginable directions (Bolton 2013: 13). The boundary collapse can be found in the clothing production sphere as in many other areas in the industry. And the technological development has accelerated even further in the twenty-first century with the invention and the advancement of computers, smart phones, and the internet. Western societies have changed dramatically since the publication of the first edition of Fashion-ology in 2005, when fashion was still somewhat concentrated in the four major cities, Paris, London, New York, and Milan. But as we know, the fashion landscape has changed almost beyond recognition in the past decades (Bruzzi and Gibson 2013). There are almost no fields or industries that are unaffected by the development of various social media tools in this digital age, such as Twitter, Instagram, blogs, Tumblr, and YouTube among others. We can discuss how technology has radically transformed our ideas about the production and consumption of fashion, impacted the occupational structure and social hierarchies within the mainstream fashion system, and changed the diffusion processes of fashion information. All of these effects resulted in the legitimation and emergence of alternative fashion systems. The validation

Fashion as an Institutionalized System

65

mechanism within the fashion system has been affected by the use of social media, which, as a global democratic tool, allows anyone to freely produce, reproduce, adopt, spread, acknowledge, and/or reject fashion in any way they wish. We can look at the informal nature and networks of youth-related fashion institutions and show some characteristics drawn from the structural-functional approach, according to which every existent society has a socially approved institutional structure composed of interdependent institutions that fulfill or impede the fulfillment of essential social functions, and where structural obstacles appear, alternative institutions emerge to carry out the obstructed functions (Merton 1946: 18, 52–3, 72). Applying this to the study of a subcultural fashion system as an alternative system that consists of youths who are savvy technology users, we find the functions that do not exist or are found in the formal institutions or systems prior to the use of social media in fashion communities.

Technology and a Changing Occupational Structure in Fashion Technology has also affected a changing occupational structure in the fashion industry. Generally speaking, industry professionals are trained to function efficiently and effectively in their respective fields and are equipped with qualified skills, backgrounds, and/or experiences, and that is what makes the industry evolve, grow, and develop. The differences between professionals and nonprofessionals/ amateurs are often apparent in any field since that is why and how the professionals get paid. Fashion professionals include designers, marketers, editors, journalists, buyers, merchandisers, retailers, and photographers among many others. In the old guild system in France that was controlled with strict regulations and rules by the government, there was a division of labor clearly spelt out even between manufacturers and merchants, and these never overlapped. For tailors, seamstresses, and dressmakers, the manufacturing process and the use of tools and equipment were regulated while merchants learnt the trade knowledge and acquired the necessary skills. Even after fashion became an institutionalized system in Paris in 1868 with the establishment of the first fashion trade organization (Kawamura 2004), the division of labor was fixed although the guild system had disappeared with the collapse of the French aristocracy. And the occupational categories were now free to overlap. For instance, Charles Frederick Worth, who used to be a fabric merchant in the old system, became a couturier/designer in the new system that replaced the guild system. However, these occupational changes were as dramatic as the ones today.

66Fashion-ology

In today’s conventional fashion system, designers are mostly those who were trained in schools with a background in design. If one wants to become a designer, one goes through a fashion school or college and learns how to design and draw garments, how a garment is constructed with different pattern pieces, and how these pieces are sewn together. Overall, they know how to execute an illustrated sketch into a real garment and learn everything about clothes-making just as a conductor in an orchestra needs to know how to play every musical instrument. Once they become a professional, they make an effort to establish a good long-lasting connection with retail buyers, who buy their products and sell them in their stores. But today’s untrained designers have access directly to their customers online. What is important for them or anyone to become a designer is to have fresh ideas and concepts because the manufacturing can be executed by others. Ideas and creativity are more valued than the actual technique. Thus, brick-and-mortar stores are replaced by online stores that can be built by anyone who wishes to sell products. There are no more middlemen or buyers with gatekeeping power who evaluate the designer’s work and decide whether to sell or not sell the products in the store. Fashion buyers and merchandisers often have a business background to understand marketing and selling strategies, to accurately predict what will be in demand the next season, and how to merchandise and market a seasonal collection, but technology has overthrown such power dynamics. From production, to distribution, marketing, and selling, the entire process can be handled by one individual. The rapid development of technology has brought about structural changes in the world of fashion and further caused the deprofessionalization of fashionrelated occupations. In the world of youth fashion, training, prior experience in the industry, and qualified skills are not necessarily required. In the new business model of fashion or the alternative fashion system, such prerequisites are not mandated. Whoever is able to attract followers through social media is a star in the new system of fashion. Whoever has a different and unique idea can produce fashion, and his or her good taste can be distributed to their followers instantaneously through social media. Fashion is no longer produced by well-qualified, trained professional designers and couturiers who know how to drape, make patterns, and instruct sewing procedures. This new industry model allows everyone who has access to computers and the internet to be designers, merchandisers, salespeople, stylists, and models. It also has changed the social hierarchy and status of all the individuals involved in producing and reproducing the fashion system.

Conclusion The hierarchical structure of fashion, which produces the authoritative status of designers, sounds inflexible, but in fact it is democratic and fluid. Fashion

Fashion as an Institutionalized System

67

as an institution produces hierarchy among all makers of clothes by adding social, economic, cultural, and symbolic capital to clothes, which are then transformed into luxury, elite clothes. Luxury clothes are meaningful only in relation to non-luxury clothes, but in modern capitalist societies anyone can obtain luxury clothes in less expensive ways. The democratization of luxury is increasingly allowing people to obtain luxury items. The motivation to attain is based on the desire to make a slight difference from others because luxury items provide a sense of superiority as an image and added values are attached to them. The success of the French system in recruiting designers, institutionalizing fashion production, and creating hierarchies among designers contributed to the international dominance of Paris. In this chapter, I have outlined the system of fashion production and showed how the fashion system in France is instrumental in producing fashion. The system institutionalizes the recognition process of members of the organization, fashion show schedules, fashion gatekeepers, government support, and the nurturing of young designers, among other things, which are all indispensable for Paris to continue as the fashion capital. Any activity of a creative character may be recognized as artistic as a result of social and cultural factors. The judgment as “creative” by a person of sufficient prestige and standing requires such conditions. Short-term success does not guarantee enduring reputation. Having a fashion show every season is one of the tactics to maintain reputation in the world of French fashion. Failing to continue a show means that one will be excluded from the official list of the designers. Exclusion from the list means the loss of the French trade organization’s recognition. Eventually, the loss of their recognition is equivalent to the loss of their status as a designer. As indicated later in this book, the fashion systems are becoming increasingly diverse and the power and privilege of Paris has been weakening as we see a new system emerging in the virtual space and mediatized world.

Guide to Further Reading Breward, Christopher (2004), Fashioning London: Clothing and the Modern Metropolis, London: Bloomsbury. Breward, Christopher, and David Gilbert (eds.) (2006), Fashion’s World Cities, London: Bloomsbury. Bruzzi, Stella, and Pamela Church-Gibson (eds.) (2013), Fashion Cultures Revisited: Theories, Explorations and Analysis, London: Routledge. Kawamura, Yuniya (2012), Fashioning Japanese Subcultures, London: Bloomsbury. Lehnert, Gertrud, and Gabriele Mentges (2013), Fusion Fashion: Culture beyond Orientalism and Occidentalism, Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH. Pool, Hannah Azieb (2016), Fashion Cities Africa, London: Intellect.

68

4 DESIGNERS AND CONSUMERS: THE PERSONIFICATION OF FASHION

Designers are undoubtedly key figures in the production of fashion and play an important role in the maintenance, reproduction, and dissemination of fashion. They are at the forefront in the field since their participation in the fashion system determines their status and reputation. Without designers, clothes do not become fashion. Although it is important to remember that they are not the only players, and that they could not produce fashion by themselves without the collaboration of other fashion professionals and producers, designers are and must be portrayed as “stars” in the production of fashion. With stars, the fashion form shines in all its glory. Designers personify fashion, and their designs objectify fashion. Thus, designers and clothing are inseparable from the notion of fashion. Many are involved in the production processes of creating the finished product, that is, the finished item of clothing, and producing the fashion label. Clothing that they design and make does not automatically turn into fashion. At that stage, they are producing clothing and not fashion. They make clothes but also produce fashion. Their job is to design clothes, but that is only the manifest function of the designer. The designers personify “fashion” that is timely, up to date, and considered desirable. Because designing fashion is not a licensed occupation and designers can be self-proclaimed, legitimation in one way or another becomes crucial. This chapter explores how designers and consumers are included in the studies of fashion, the link between designers’ creativity and social structures, the star system that has personified “fashion” since the time of the couturiers

70Fashion-ology

Charles Frederick Worth and Paul Poiret, and the hierarchical positions that the designers occupy within the fashion system.

Designers in the Studies of Fashion None of the writers discuss the role that designers or creators of fashion play in producing fashion, although the designers as we know them today were already prominent at the turn of the twentieth century. Fashion design was never considered a legitimate occupation, and traditionally the attention was always on the upper-class women who wore luxury clothes. Fashion has always been analyzed from the perspective of those who are adopting or consuming fashion because prior to the institutionalization, fashion emerged out of the upper-class men and women, and thus the producer and consumer of fashion shared the same origin. Those who initiated trends wore the latest, fashionable clothes. Designing as an occupation is a modern phenomenon that began with the institutionalized system of fashion in France in 1868, as discussed in Chapter 3. Fashion designated what the elites wore. This presumption has faded with social change and democratization. Fashion is no longer only a trickle-down process coming from top to bottom as Tarde (1903) and others (Simmel 1904 [1957]; Veblen 1899 [1957]) argue but has also become a “trickle-across” process as Spencer (1896 [1966]) suggests in explaining competitive imitation or even a “trickle-up” or “bubble-up” process as Blumer (1969a, 1969b) and Polhemus (1994, 1996) postulate. We should not make the mistake of believing that what upper classes purchase is considered fashion and the rest not fashion. Although I do not deny the power of the wearer to convert clothing into fashion, it is the institutions that determine and diffuse which clothes become fashion. There is an interconnection between the production and consumption of fashion. Furthermore, none of the early writers had a place for designers’ individual creativity, nor did they anticipate the changes in class structure and attitudes toward authority that would prompt some people to reject upper-class images. There is a deficiency in the scholarly literature on fashion designers in all social science disciplines. Crane is one of the few sociologists who specifically focuses on a discussion on design as an occupation (1993, 1997a, 1997b). Designers are rarely included in the sociological analysis of artists, such as painters, sculptors, writers, dancers, musicians, or writers. Crane analyzes the social position of designers in the United States, France, the UK, and Japan, and also examines the styles that the designers create. She (2000) argues that a single fashion genre, Haute Couture, has been replaced by three major categories of styles, each with its own genre: luxury fashion design, industrial fashion, and street styles. On the other hand, I focus on designers rather than designs (Kawamura

Designers and Consumers

71

2004), and designers are classified according to different types within the system of hierarchy, and each group of designers constitutes a class, that is, the designers who belong to the fashion system and those who do not. Like Crane, Bourdieu (1980) insists on the importance of the producers of cultural goods. In the case of fashion, it is the fashion designers. These producers can be totally involved and absorbed in their struggles with other producers. They are very much responsible for creating, diffusing, and legitimizing clothing as fashion. As barriers between the classes have diminished, there has been a need for someone else to create fashion. The social positions of fashion designers have risen. People have needed someone to follow. With the disappearance of clear class boundaries and the loss of a subject to imitate, the emphasis has shifted from the wearer of fashion to the producer/creator of fashion. Crane (2000) examines how the nature of fashion organizations affects what is available to consumers, how certain types of consumers influence what is defined as fashion, and how the organizations affect designers. The hierarchical structure that was the result of the French fashion trade organization, which is at the core of the system, must be included in the discussion of design as an occupation. Crane argues that by the late 1960s the increasing decentralization and complexity of the fashion system necessitated the development of fashion forecasting, and fashion bureaus play a major role in predicting future trends and what types of clothing will sell. My empirical findings (Kawamura 2004) also show that many of the forecasters make every effort to get into invitation-only fashion shows and predict what may become the future trends. Company designers and retailers from the United States and other countries come to Paris to purchase fashion items as samples so as to “steal” ideas. The fashion-ological analysis of designers is social-organizational and not aesthetic. Fashion is not defined as something more special or as a great work of genius. However, the works of designers are essential because the understanding of the social structure and organization of the fashion system includes the designers’ role in the system and what they produce. Thus, we cannot dismiss designers and their designs, their fabrics and silhouettes, and even the production process of types of clothing must be taken into account in order to understand fashion and clothing fully. It is not the intention of Fashionology to define creativity, but one can question the meaning of creativity and its labeling process. Fashion systems transform clothing into fashion. Fashion is a symbolic production while clothes are a material production. Fashion is a symbol manifested through clothing. I have shown (Kawamura 2004) the connection between social institutions of fashion and the legitimation of designers by those institutions. The French fashion trade organization, the principal focus of my research, has endured for well over a century. That persistence directs our attention to the internal systemic structure of the organization. The history of the organization, which lies in the center of

72Fashion-ology

the system, shows the changing nature of its structure. The organization was compelled to take measures in order to maintain the exclusivity of French fashion or to ease some of its regulations to bring new designers into the system so that Paris as the fashion capital would survive. The system and its participants constantly negotiate external social situations. For instance, the Haute Couture organization first differentiated itself from other custom-made clothes, called Confection, in order to make Haute Couture exclusive. The organization has changed membership criteria to allow younger designers to take part. They have introduced a new kind of Haute Couture called Demi-Couture (half-couture) due to the loss of Haute Couture customers and declining profits. The emergence of Kenzo, the first Japanese designer in Paris to enter the French system, was a result of changes taking place in the system that permitted, encouraged, or demanded an infusion of something new, different, and exotic. At the same time, the arrival of the avant-garde Japanese designers (Issey Miyake, Yohji Yamamoto, and Rei Kawakubo) forced the system to expand its boundary and include them. There is a connection between the structure and the process by which individuals are integrated into it. Designers’ inclusion into the system is vital because that inclusion labels their activity and designs as “creative.” Creativity, I argue, is a legitimation and a labeling process. One is not born creative but one becomes, that is, one is identified as, creative.

Designers, Creativity, and Social Structure Actors in the system have shared values to achieve their specific goals. Each participant has individual goals that are met by participation in the system, plays a specific part in the overall system, and gets benefits from that participation. The making of designers is not a responsibility of one individual but of a collective activity. One can look at fashion organizations and the fashion system in relation to the people whose collective actions construct the fashion system because there is always a correlation between social structures and the actions of people working collectively. These cooperative networks make fashion happen. All parts, each with specific latent and manifest functions within the institution, are interdependent. None of them is indispensable in the production of fashion. Thus, institutions and creators belong to the system that contributed in making Paris the fashion capital. A small number of people in any organization can hold authority. The elites who are in control generally share a common culture, and they mobilize formally and informally in the sense that they act together to defend their positions, and use it to their own individual as well as institutional advantages. It is they who act as gatekeepers and construct the legitimate standard of aesthetics of appearance by taking advantage of Paris as their symbolic capital.

Designers and Consumers

73

While talents and creativity alone are invoked to explain the success and the fame of a fashion designer, understanding the structure of the fashion system is essential to gaining the official designer status. The concept of creativity in fashion is as elusive as for any artistic activity, but it is generally, and correctly, assumed that the making of fashion requires special skills. The majority of fashion professionals who have the authority to name creative designers point to their innovativeness and innate talent. Although it is not inaccurate to say that these designers are gifted, these gifts alone do not give them the status that the world acknowledges. Every individual has an urge to create something and possesses the seed for creativity, but external forces are required to legitimate that act or the end product as “creative.” The conception of creativity needs to be questioned. Examining the institutional factors in the social process of the making of a designer will provide some answers to this vexed question. I am in opposition to the conventional notion that any great art will eventually be recognized because great creators with exceptional talents produce artworks with universal aesthetic qualities that are part of universal human cultural values. This theory does not take into consideration the social processes and environment in which creators take part. Since 1970, Japanese designers have enjoyed high reputations in Paris, and no history of fashion in Paris is complete without them. As indicated in my empirical research (Kawamura 2004), it was not only their creativity that made them famous and sent them to Paris. If designers’ talent can directly correlate with their prestige and success, these designers could have remained in Japan; wherever they were, according to the conventional view, they would have been discovered by fashion legitimators. Paris is the ultimate “symbolic capital” (Bourdieu 1984) for designers, and for non-Western designers in particular, because “fashion” is believed to have originally been a Western concept. Having been acknowledged by the French fashion system, they have the ticket to go anywhere in the world, and their reputations are guaranteed. The younger Japanese designers are following the same path, and one needs to investigate how they take advantage of the French system and how French recognition has influenced their status in their homeland, Japan. Thus, by examining in analytical and descriptive detail an institutional realm of fashion about which there is little systematic information, I dismiss the mythical conception of a designer as a “creative genius” disconnected from social conditions. The institutional structure that surrounds the phenomenon of fashion has been neglected in the studies of fashion. An analysis of designers, especially the Japanese avant-garde designers, can provide the criteria that fashion gatekeepers use in the evaluation of innovative designers. Well-known designers are supposedly creative and have exceptional skills. However, it is the admission into the system that defines designers’ creativity. The organizational structure of the system at the time when designers seek to enter the system is crucial. Rei Kawakubo, one of the Japanese avant-garde designers, can be .

74Fashion-ology

referred to as an example because she uses unique methods to materialize her abstract concepts into actual material clothing. The material fabrication is not the major consideration in defining creativity. The system needs to name creative designers because without them, the system loses the meaning of its existence. The concept of newness must be integrated into the discussion of creativity as these two are the opposite sides of the same coin. What has been previously observed by fashion gatekeepers is never considered new, and therefore not creative. We must question, then, “new to whom?” Wolff (1993) treats the notion of creativity as the central theme in her book, approaching the arts from a traditional notion of “the artist” or “the author,” whose creative autonomy is reduced to a series of social, economic, and ideological coordinates. I use Wolff’s analytical framework to understand the link between structure and creativity, which appear to be in opposition but are mutually dependent. Creativity is not given and not universal, but produced within a social system (Wolff 1993). Designers express whatever they have internalized using fabrics that are in turn materialized into clothing, but I argue that this has nothing to do with the definition of creativity because it is the system that defines creativity. The conception of the artist as a unique and gifted individual is a historically specific one, and it dates to the rise of the merchant classes in Italy and France, and from the rise of humanist ideas in philosophy and religious thought (Wolff 1993). It is often believed that the artist is an isolated individual, detached from any social institutions. Likewise, designers are known to be gifted and talented by nature. It is frequently believed that the fashion leader has the personality of an artist, an artist of clothes, and like all artists, his or her ability is inborn; the feeling for clothes cannot be taught, either a person possesses the flare or they are without it (Brenninkmeyer 1963: 60). Fashion-ology challenges such a view of the designer. By participating in the fashion system, designers first earn legal-rational1 authority, and they are expected to abide by the system’s rules and regulations. The fashion system accords charismatic authority, that is, the mythic status of a great designer. This is a reversal of Weber’s (1947) theory of authority in which charismatic authority precedes legal-rational authority. Similarly, the authority of the system arises out of the authority of designers. Charismatic authority rests on a leader’s personal qualities, so that the governed submit because of their belief in the extraordinary quality of the specific person, and the legitimacy of charismatic rule thus rests upon the belief in magical powers, revelations, and hero worship (Gerth and Mills 1970). Thus, charismatic authority does not require scientific or factual evidence to prove seemingly supernatural talent. It needs instead elements that attract followers to maintain charisma which subsequently creates a hierarchy of those who have that exceptional skill and those who do not. The stratification system is the result of status competition. The charismatic

Designers and Consumers

75

authority of the “great” designer is ratified, indeed produced, by the fashion system.

Legitimation of the Designer’s Creativity It is often taken as given that the designer must have completely mastered the technical side of dressmaking and have an innate feeling for color harmonies, the balance and arrangement of parts, the matching of different or similar materials, and a feeling for rhythm (Brenninkmeyer 1963: 60). However, when one studies to what extent the designer is involved in the actual manufacturing and designing process of a garment, the degree of involvement varies from designer to designer and from company to company. Then the job description of the designer becomes questionable, and then the meaning of creativity also becomes questionable. What do designers do? They design clothes. Does that mean they only sketch and draw? If so, what is the difference between a designer and a fashion illustrator? Paul Poiret, who was one of the greatest designers and couturiers of the twentieth century, had a fashion illustrator sketch his designs. Then what was his job? He draped, which means he had the skill and knew about garment construction. Then does this job description apply to all designers? Rei Kawakubo is known for not having had any fashion training (Sudjic 1990), nor did Coco Chanel (Tobin 1994), but they are two of the greatest designers in the history of fashion. There is no specific job description for a designer. Then how are they evaluated? Based on what skills? Zolberg poses a question succinctly: Inherent in the controversies concerning the nature of art, whether in the art world per se or in the generally problematic cohabitation of sociology and art, is the agency by which it is created, centering on the person- or personageor the artist. Does it matter who creates the work? How the creator comes to be an artist? Whether the artist works alone or as part of a group? (1990: 107) The dressmakers/designers used to be judged by the way they created their silhouettes. Madeleine Vionnet, who was apprenticed at the age of eleven to a dressmaker, gradually worked her way up, until she opened her own couture house in 1912 (Steele 1988: 118). It was she who invented the biased cut. Alix Grès, known as Madame Grès, also invented intricate pleating techniques that could not be readily reproduced by anyone else but her. In today’s fashion, the focus is less on the actual clothing or its manufacturing process, but rather, on the designer who can produce and reproduce a glamorous, attractive image to the consumers. For example, Issey Miyake, a Japanese designer in Paris who is known for his new and innovative fabrics, works with a creative textile designer,

76Fashion-ology

Makiko Minagawa, who comes up with something concrete while Miyake gives out an abstract concept. The irony is that the designers whose dressmaking and tailoring techniques were exclusive and superb did not survive as an enterprise since the industry gradually shifted its attention toward image-making. Although Chanel did not know much about clothing production, her name continues till this day, while the names of Vionnet and Madame Grès remain only in the history of fashion and have disappeared from the commercial market. The star quality is more significant than the skills that the designers possess. Today, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and movies are often credited with legitimizing fashion change, even with “creating” fashion, since they give intensive and selective exposure to some proposed fashions and ignore others. Their primary role within the present-day fashion system may be that of speeding up fashion change because they show new fashions that are being worn by persons or groups who have the prestige to be legitimators.

The Star System of Designers According to Arnold Hanser (1968), the social organization of artistic production changed during the Renaissance and the conception of the artist as a genius, and the idea that the work of art is the creation of an autocratic personality. The designer is a relatively modern figure. The social prestige and the nature of occupation change over time. The history of designers shows us that until the mid-nineteenth century, those who made clothes did not have much social prestige, and their names were never publicly exposed. After Worth, dressmakers and tailors became the couturiers and designers. They dictated the trends and the tastes, which used to originate from court society. Today, designers create images. They have celebrity status and not only control public taste but also create their own image carefully. The very first concept of a designer emerged in France when fashion was institutionalized by the French trade organization. Before that, those who made clothing were not designers. The roles that fabric merchants, dressmakers, and tailors played were very different and were restricted and controlled tightly by the guild system. One of the earliest significant figures in the history of fashion is probably Rose Bertin, who was known as a minister of fashion. Her name often appears in the history of French fashion because she helped design clothes with Queen MarieAntoinette. Bertin was in the world of fashion before Worth and, strictly speaking, she was not a couturiere but a marchande de mode (De Marly 1980a: 11) who sold bonnets, fans, frills, and lace in addition to making clothes. She did not create nor initiate “fashion.” She was not the producer of fashion. De Marly explains:

Designers and Consumers

77

Rose Bertin did not create … fashions single-handed: rather they were the outcome of discussions between the queen and her ladies and were then realized by Bertin as actual items of wear. Thus Rose Bertin does not qualify for the title of fashion dictator in the sense of being a completely independent operator who launches new lines at her own establishment, regardless of the opinions of her customers. (1980a: 11) Dressmakers and tailors merely carried out the ideas devised for them by artists. The institutionalization of fashion in France from 1868 elevated the status of those who were involved in clothes making from a craftsperson to a designer. Worth was the very first designer whose name was exposed to the public. He was no longer a servant catering to rich women. He was so popular that all women wanted to be dressed by Worth. He changed the whole social organization of dressmaking and the relationship between a couturier and a client. He was authoritative and autocratic and considered himself an artist rather than a dressmaker or a tailor who served the rich. He was the first star designer in history. This technique and methodology prove to be still effective, and probably even more so today as fashion is less about clothing production and more about image production. Many now believe that the role of the fashion leader is to skillfully design models for a select group of rich women who will later be imitated by other groups in the long hierarchy of fashion diffusion, to be a symbol of the modern manner of appearance, and to make the fashion of the moment seem so attractive and desirable. In Worth’s time, the designer or couturier was responsible for designing the creations, and then the design would be handed over to a workroom to be made up as the toile, a trial dress in cheap fabrics like calico or linen, to see how well the design worked, and what problems it might create over construction (De Marly 1990:12). Such requirements for the designer began to change at the turn of the twentieth century.

The Star Designers since the Turn of the Twentieth Century How designers are involved in clothing production is not relevant to consumers, but designers have to be labeled by legitimators as the stars who create fashion. Stars are socially constructed with followers and fans who are bonded to them. In today’s world of fashion, designers must become the stars. If not, they remain mere company designers who produce clothing and fashion that are reachable to the masses who want to believe that they have a part in wearing fashionable clothing. The star quality of the designer is not inborn or of nature but is a social construction. The stars are necessary to rejuvenate and revamp the industry. Hollander remarks:

78Fashion-ology

“Fashion” is what appears by that name in the media and in designers’ collections in shops, after first appearing on runways; and just as in all of show business, it is now connected with famous names and their famous characteristic associations. The stars of “Fashion” arrive, thrive and fade, new postures and themes flourish until dimmed or swamped by others, all in the context of vast and thrilling corporate risk. (1994: 10–11) Similarly, Lipovetsky defines the designers’ star system as follows: The enchanted fabrication of images of seduction … Like fashion, stars are artificial constructions, and if fashion is the aestheticization of clothing, the star system is the aestheticization of actors—not only their faces but their entire individuality … the star system is based on the same values as fashion, on the sacralization of individuality and appearances. Just as fashion is the apparent personalization of ordinary human beings, so the star is the personalization of the actor; just as fashion is the sophisticated staging of the human body, so the star is the media staging of a personality. (1994: 182) Fashion as an intangible cultural symbol becomes tangible and concrete through the process of personification. Luxurious lifestyles with gala evenings and expensive dresses are associated with fashion. Paul Poiret (1879–1944) was probably a pioneer in publicity and communication. He became as famous as or more famous than the clients he designed for. Although Poiret’s couture house does not exist today, unlike Christian Dior or Coco Chanel, Poiret left a number of legacies in the world of fashion. He first apprenticed at Jacques Doucet, a famous couturier at the time, and later at Worth. Then he set up his own couture house. Poiret introduced an empire style,2 and for that the constriction in the middle of a corset had to be removed. He introduced high waists, slim figures, and narrow dresses with very little decoration. His style was criticized as “lowering the tone of couture” and “barbaric” (De Marly 1987: 84). His life was very flamboyant, and he organized fancy dress parties and fashion shows with all the publicity he could receive. In 1910, Poiret took the slim style to the extreme and created the hobble skirt, a garment so narrow that walking was almost impossible. This created an uproar, and criticism poured in from all directions. What was positive about this trend was that it provoked a great deal of sensation, including papal condemnation from Rome (De Marly 1987: 90), which was considered good publicity. Poiret also tried to launch trousers for women. Women were starting to wear bloomers for cycling, but trousers for women as fashionable dress were unheard of. After the First World War, he could not adjust to the change in society and people’s taste. Gabriel Coco Chanel (1883–1971) is one of the greatest and the most famous female star designers in the history of twentieth-century fashion. She was

Designers and Consumers

79

provocative and promiscuous. Like Poiret, her lifestyle was way out of the norm, but in different ways. The popular image of Chanel is that of a unique genius who created her personal style in isolation from the work of other fashion designers (Tobin 1994). Her biography is just as or more interesting than the styles she innovated, such as jersey sportswear with short skirts. In the Belle Époque,3 it was almost a cliché for a man to set up his mistress in the hat business, so that she would be financially independent when he tired of her (Steele 1992: 119). Chanel once said: “I was able to open a high fashion shop, because two gentlemen were outbidding each other for my hot little body” (quoted in Steele 1992: 119). In the early years of her career, Chanel knew little about the technical aspects of dressmaking and was very much dependent on her seamstresses and tailors, but as Steele explains, Chanel’s strengths lay elsewhere: in concept and image: Her image as a modern woman has strongly influenced our perception of her contribution to fashion … She was a fashion personality. She epitomized the liberated and independent woman … Chanel … was the woman that other women wanted to look like. In this sense, she represented the new type of fashion designer, who combined in her person the hitherto masculine role of the fashion “genius” with the feminine role of fashion leader (not the dressmaker, but the celebrity). Vionnet always denied that a clever man like Poiret or a stylish woman like Chanel could ever equal professional dressmakers like the Callot sisters, and in technical terms this was probably true. But in terms of mass popularity, it was irrelevant. (1992: 120–3) The image that Chanel was portraying was very different from that of Dior, and he was one of the reasons that Chanel decided to come out of retirement. To her, he was the epitome of the bad, male designer who imposed all sorts of artificial shapes upon women without ever referring to the fundamental nature of women’s bodies, and Dior assumed the right to instruct women in remodeling themselves to suit his fantasies; he loved flowers, so let all women bloom into roses. The picture may be charming, but it does not hold up very well in the real world where the majority of women have to work for a living, and blooming dresses would soon suffer from the blight of travel, weather, children, and machines (De Marly 1990: 69). When ordinary clothes were still rationed, Dior was employing lavish amounts of fabric and the most luxurious and expensive fabrics, such as silk and satin, and that was scandalous. For ordinary women, rationing meant that the New Look was impossible to achieve and it was 1948 before the clothing industry could even attempt to copy the style. De Marly explains the image that Dior was creating and supporting: Time and time again, he wrote that he was trying to make women more alluring, more seductive, more coquettish, so he subscribed only to the old masculine

80Fashion-ology

society’s view of women, which the Church fully endorsed, that woman could only be Eve, the eternal temptress, who should be judged on her physical assets alone … He only knew two types of women, the professional glamour girls and entertainers, and the rich. Women professors, doctors, writers, administrators and commandants, did not exist in Dior’s world. (1990: 69) Dior was extremely successful as an enterprise, and by 1954, he had 900 employees, of whom forty-six were on the administrative side, and the rest were selling and making clothes. In 1955, the figure was put at 1,000 staff in twentyeight workrooms and five buildings. He was the biggest couturier in Paris although still smaller than Worth who had been with a staff of 1,200 (De Marly 1990). Dior’s biggest achievement was reviving the couture industry in Paris after the Second World War, bringing foreign clients back from all over the world. After the city had disappeared under the Nazi heel in the summer of 1940, London and New York had become the chief fashion centers so the press was focused on them. Dior attracted international headlines notifying the world that Paris couture was back and alive. The French fashion industry wanted to create a star, and for that Dior was selected. He died of a heart attack in 1957. Then Yves Saint Laurent was appointed to design for the house. His first show was in 1958, and his last was in 1960. Then Marc Bohan was summoned from the London branch. He had joined Piguet’s in 1945, spent a couple of years with Molyneux, and then gone to Patou in 1950, from where Dior recruited him. Bohan was at Dior until 1989. A network of star designers reproduced another group or generation of star designers.4 For instance, Balmain was trained by Molyneux who began his career with Lucile; Givenchy worked for Fath, Piguet, Lelong, and Schiaparelli before launching out on his own; and Griffe worked for Vionnet who started at Doucet. Christian Dior (1905–57) sold his design to couture houses, to Patou, Schiaparelli, Nina Ricci, Maggy Rouff, Piguet, Molyneux, Worth, Paquin, and Balenciaga among others. He knew nothing about the construction of clothes, so the designer Georges Geoffrey introduced Dior to the couturier Robert Piguet, who trained him as a designer in 1938. He had crossed the threshold into Haute Couture. In 1941, Dior received an invitation to join Lucien Lelong’s couture house back in Paris to work alongside Pierre Balmain, who opened his store in 1944 and had trained under Molyneux between 1934 and 1939. Dior was very much influenced by Worth and Molyneux.

Hierarchy among Designers in the Fashion System The designers are most stratified in the French system of fashion: couturiers who design Haute Couture, designers who design Prêt-à-Porter, and company

Designers and Consumers

81

designers who design for the mass-produced apparel companies. This group classification began with the institutionalization of fashion. A symbolic boundary divides designers in the French fashion system from those outside the system. Those in the system form the dominant position with “couturiers” in the upper stratum and “creators” in the lower one. These particular groups of designers can be the main focus of one’s research because they are the major players in the game. Fashion ensures the functioning of a system of dominant and subordinate positions within a social order. Fashion is ideological in that it is also part of the process by which particular social groups, in this case elite designers, establish, sustain, and reproduce positions of power and relations of dominance and subordination. The positions of dominance and subordination appear natural and legitimate, not only to those in positions of dominance, but also to those in subordinate positions. Fashion and the medium of fashion, that is, clothing, offer means to make inequalities of socio-economic status appear legitimate, and therefore, acceptable. A legitimate reason for excluding those designers who remain outside the system is that they do not have sufficient creativity and talent. According to Gramsci (1975), hegemony refers to the situation where certain social groups or certain fractions of social groups in positions of dominance exert their social authority as a result of their power appearing and being experienced as legitimate. He argues that the ruling class or group controls not only property but also, even more importantly, the means of producing beliefs about reality. Accordingly, French hegemony over fashion is treated as given and unquestionable. However, I argue that fashion professionals and institutions in the system deliberately make efforts to sustain the structure and hegemony. Hegemony is a moving battle that must be constantly negotiated, refought, and rewon on a series of battlefields (Gramsci 1975). The designers within the system that has the hegemonic structure grant themselves privilege and status to distance themselves from other designers who are engaging in the same activities and tasks but do not have the equivalent social and symbolic capital. The boundary between different groups of designers corresponds to the public who consume the respective clothing styles. The institutionalization of fashion in France resulted in the demarcation between two groups of designers, just as it drew a line between those who consumed the latest fashion and those who imitated what the other class wore (Simmel 1904 [1957]; Veblen 1899 [1957]). The designers in the system, whom I call “elite designers,” reaffirm their status through continuous participation in the regular fashion shows, which serve as a ritual that reproduces and reinforces the symbolic meaning of fashion, much like the Durkheimian analysis of religion (Durkheim 1912 [1965]). However, this demarcation is also democratic, arbitrary, and fluid not only for consumers but also for designers. With institutionalization, fashion, once reserved for the elites, has become more democratized and accessible to the masses. Institutional innovation has had an effect on the

82Fashion-ology

legitimation of new designers and new styles. It institutionalized elite clothes as Haute Couture (high fashion or high sewing) and Prêt-à-Porter (ready-to-wear). Recently a new category, Demi-Couture (half-couture), was added, although it is still not officially institutionalized, in an attempt to nurture and welcome younger designers to the couture group. Fashion-ology denies the romantic notion of the designer as genius, removed from the usual condition of ordinary people by virtue of the gift of artistic/creative genius. It moves away from the idea of artist-as-creator. It treats designers as one category of the participants in the social relations of fashion. As Steele (1988: 9) points out: The fashion leadership of Paris was not due to any particular spirit of frivolity or progressiveness on the part of Parisians. Nor is Paris fashion the product of individual creative genius, although this concept continues to play a large part in the mythology of fashion. The many anecdotes about the “dictatorship” or the “genius” of Paris fashion designers indicate a profound misunderstanding of the fashion process. We should not overemphasize the individual artist as being the unique creator of a work because to do so writes out of the account the numerous other people involved in the production of any work, and also draws attention away from the various socially constituting and determining processes involved. As Wolff explains (1993: 134), the traditional concept of the artist-as-creator depends on an unexamined view of the subject and conceives of a person with no institutional ties, but in fact the artist is constituted by social and cultural processes. Similarly, Becker (1982) asserts that the individual artist is transformed into a team player, one of many collaborators. As he presents the process of artistic production, there is little difference between creation and reception. Our attention is directed to the social process of creating a designer, to how people become designers, to how and what they make and create, and to how they remain as known designers and maintain their positions. We are not concerned with the manufacturing, patternmaking, or draping processes that are enacted to create an item of clothing, although these are interesting areas to focus on since every designer uses a slightly different technique and various methodologies in the manufacturing process.

The Adoption and Consumption of Fashion It is not only the designers who produce fashion but also consumers who are now active producers and influencers of fashion. The sociological understanding

Designers and Consumers

83

of fashion includes an analysis of consumers who adopt fashion and their consumption behavior because the consumers participate directly and indirectly in the production of fashion. When fashion reaches the stages of adoption and consumption, it is converted into something more concrete and visible; that is, clothing fashion. Once clothing is manufactured, it is worn and consumed. Once fashion is produced, it has also to be consumed in order for the belief to continue and perpetuate. Without the acts of reception and consumption, the cultural product of fashion is not complete. Production influences consumption, and consumption influences production. Therefore, they can be treated simultaneously in the analysis of fashion. Similarly, the consumption aspect of cultural products in general can also be taken into consideration, and we need to question how the consumers of fashion integrate with the producers of fashion, as the consumers are also the producers in the twenty-first century. Fashion-ology involves the study of the social context in which fashion is not only produced but also consumed, and the meaning intended and assigned to the acts and settings of production and consumption. Cultural products, such as fashion, paintings, and food, must be evaluated and interpreted in terms of their audience. Back explains the transition from producer to consumer and their relationship as follows: The lengthy path from producer to consumer is further continued by the intended audience. The consumer’s arrangement of the final product, its composition, the occasion at which fashions are worn and displayed, become themselves creative occasions. Cultural creativity is continued in this way in the general public. This last step may be socially important in the use and development of fashions as the original production link. (1985: 3–4) Thus, consumption should not be considered in isolation. Fashion-ology consists of a sociology of fashion production as well as a sociology of fashion consumption because consumption and production are complementary, especially in today’s diverse and complex fashion systems, which include fashions emerging from youth culture and the metaverse. Consumption is first reviewed from a historical perspective, and the connection between consumption as status and symbolic strategy, and the breakdown between consumption and production is examined.

Consumption: A Historical Perspective The model of modern-day consumption originated in prerevolutionary court life, especially that of Louis XIV of France (1638–1715) who was known as “the consumer king.” He indulged himself in lavish and opulent clothing and ornamentation. Handmade carpets, upholstery, and curtains were changed every season at Versailles. Louis XIV is remembered for his sumptuous style of

84Fashion-ology

living rather than the important military, religious, or political events during his reign. There was the closed world of courtly consumption, and it was the court of Louis XIV that had made elegance and France synonymous (De Marly 1987). The purpose of such luxury was not to give pleasure either to the king or to his courtiers. It was an expression of his political power. Mukerji explains how serious he was in making France the center of aesthetic culture: For Louis XIV and his ministers, who took French claims to greatness more than seriously, having both the Great Tradition and trends in fashion located so firmly in Italy was unacceptable. If the French state was to become a center of European civilization, not just power, it had to take cultural leadership. So, Louis XIV followed classical precedent and had his achievements monumentalized through artworks, while Colbert manipulated fashion to make French goods desirable to elite consumers throughout Europe. Material beauty was more a matter of power and glory than an aesthetic issue to these men. (1997: 101) The ceremonies of consumption, the feasts and fêtes, the balls and practices, were all part of a calculated system that had as its aim not individual gratification but an enhancement of political authority. The consumer class was restricted to the courtly circle. The sixteenth-century aristocracy was nearly homogeneous in its consumer tastes because the ladies and gentlemen of the court acknowledged the king as the tastemaker and the trendsetter. Williams explains the destructive spending behavior within the closed court culture: Once admitted to the charmed circle of the court, however, a noble had to spend ruinously to stay there. He needed clothes embroidered with gold and silver threads and brilliant jewels to wear to the balls; a stable of horses and kennel of dogs for hunting; carriages with velvet upholstery and painted panels so that he could accompany the king on migrations to other palaces; houses and furnishings so that he could provide dances and dinners for the court; and dozens of valets and servants and stablehands, to all the rest possible. With rare exceptions, courtiers ran up stupendous debts. Although compelled by overwhelming pressure to perpetual imitation of the royal lifestyle, they had nothing like the king’s income. (1982: 28–9) Therefore, the history of France illustrates the nature and dilemmas of modern consumption. By the eighteenth century, the way of life enjoyed by the French aristocracy and wealthy bourgeoisie had established itself as a prototype admired and imitated by upper classes throughout Europe. This courtly style of consumption no longer exists, but the life of consumers is more vigorous than ever. There is an incessant desire to purchase and consume, and those pleasures and feelings are available to ordinary people. Thus, one

Designers and Consumers

85

homogeneous consumer style derived from a single source of authority shifted to a diversity of styles based on a multiplicity of authorities.

Consumer Revolution Goods were obtained mainly through barter and self-production, so that the activity of consumption was closely linked with that of production. The consumption pattern then changed with the advent of mass consumption, which came with mass production. A clear division was established between the activities of production and those of consumption. With the Industrial Revolution came the Consumer Revolution, which represented a change in tastes, preferences, and buying habits. Williams explains how the consumers changed with the Industrial Revolution: The industrial changes made possible large-scale production. The illusion of riches could be enjoyed in dress, especially in “the democratization of the ‘silk dress,’ that ancient symbol of opulence, thus procuring the illusion of similarity in clothing—a great comfort for the feminine half of the human race.” … Technological advances had also transformed the feather industry: cheap and persuasive facsimiles of the rarest varieties, or even of totally imaginary ones, could be purchased by any shopgirl. Rabbit pelts could be turned into exotic furs like “Mongolian chinchilla.” (1982: 97) In the 1860s, the dress of peasant and also of working-class women was noticeably darker and cruder than the complicated trains, trailing skirts, laces, and ribbons of wealthier women, but by the 1890s everyone wore shorter, simpler, and more colorful clothes. Mass consumption means that similar merchandise reaches all regions and all classes, and by the beginning of the twentieth century this uniform market was expanding in France and other parts of Europe. The consequences of this consumer revolution were numerous and diverse. First and foremost, people’s value systems transformed. With mass production, fashion, which had been the epitome of luxury, was democratized, and consumption behavior began to change. McCraken (1988) makes a comparison between patina and novelty to explain how and why fashion, which values newness, became acceptable. With the consumer revolution and the emergence of a consumer society, patina became less valued while novelty became highly valued and desirable. Patina used to serve as a kind of visual proof of status, and it suffered an eclipse in the eighteenth century (McCraken 1988: 32). There was a wide range of choices, and consumers were driven by new tastes and preferences. Society at large valued things that were new, which had more status than things that were old. Thus, fashion, whose essence is change, came to be highly important and meaningful.

86Fashion-ology

Furthermore, the rate of fashion change accelerated in the eighteenth century, and partly due to industrial development, what had once taken a year to change now took only a season. Marketers began to take advantage of the social as well as commercial dynamics of fashion and worked to increase its pitch. New techniques to create new styles and discredit old ones were constantly being developed. When a new fashion appeared, anyone with the necessary taste and resources could take possession of the latest innovation and use it for status purposes. This meant that first-generation wealth was now indistinguishable from the wealth of fifth-generation gentry (McCraken 1988: 40). As McKendrick remarks, “Novelty became an irresistible drug for people in modern society” (1982: 10). Like Blumer (1969a), who argues that fashion comes out of collective selection and that it is the consumers’ taste that dictates fashion, McKendrick (1982) says that a change in productive means and ends cannot have occurred without a commensurate change in consumers’ tastes and preferences. The English consumers welcomed the cheap calico and muslins imported from India in the 1690s (Mukerji 1983) because consumer tastes were changing, and that led to a new scale of domestic production and foreign imports. Due to the eighteenth-century innovation and the commercialization of fashion, which made fashionable items more accessible, consumer demand changed. Industrial innovations included a more rapid obsolescence of style, the speedier diffusion of fashion knowledge, the appearance of marketing techniques such as the fashion doll and the fashion plate, the new and more active participation of previously excluded social groups, and new ideas about consumption and its contribution to the public good (McKendrick 1982). Therefore, economic transformation and technological changes lowered the cost of existing consumer goods, which made them readily available to all social classes. Steam engines made transportation more possible. The invention of printing and photography also had a significant influence on mass consumption. Modern human beings have perpetual desire, and fashion seems to feed on it. As Williams says: The elitist consumer never finds a resting place, never attains an equilibrium, but must keep buying and discarding, picking up and dropping items, perpetually on the move to keep one jump ahead of the common herd. He therefore shares the fate of the mass consumer, who … finds that illusions of wealth are always disappearing as once-unusual objects are sold in every department store and therefore lose their capacity to convey the aura of wealth. (1982: 139) Miller (1981) examines the influence of the department store Bon Marché on the culture of nineteenth-century France and the important role it played in the

Designers and Consumers

87

consumer revolution. It provided not only a place to find and purchase goods but was also organized to inflame people’s material desires and feelings. The contribution of the department store to changing tastes and preferences, changing purchase behavior, changing the relationship between buyer and seller, and changing marketing techniques was immeasurable. It worked to shape and transfer the cultural meaning of goods and also served as an important site for the conjunction of culture and consumption. The department store must be seen not only as a reflection of changing consumer patterns but also as a decisive agent that actively contributed to the culture in which consumption took place. The goods of the department store gave material expression to the values of the bourgeoisie and these objects, which had to be fashionable, made these values concrete and gave them a “reality all their own” (Miller 1981: 180). Therefore, the department store materialized the values, attitudes, and aspirations of the bourgeoisie. It infused goods with cultural meaning. Material symbols helped to reorganize cultural meaning. Miller (1981) demonstrates how the large department stores became harbingers of the modern retailing world of today.

Consuming Fashion as Symbolic Strategy Holbrook and Dixon (1985: 110) define fashion as “public consumption” through which people communicate to others the image they wish to project. This definition contains three primarily descriptive components: (1) public consumption, (2) communication to others, and (3) image. First, by focusing on public consumption as the definition of fashion, the role of conspicuous usage that is open to inspection by others is stressed. Fashion behavior entails some display of one’s preference hierarchy, some outward manifestation of inward evaluative judgments. In order for consumption to serve symbolically, it must be visible to others, which relates to Veblen’s concept of conspicuous consumption. Material objects intentionally adopted for this purpose must be observable or noticeable. Fashion involves overt consumption behavior that makes one’s tastes or values accessible to the awareness of others. Second, communications with others through consumption became a signal to others as to which norms are shared and agreed upon among a number of individuals. There has to be a consensus among people in society that a particular item of clothing is fashion. We do not call consumer behavior “fashionable” if only one person does it. As noted in the previous chapters, fashion production as well as consumption is a collective activity. Third, image can be treated as a consumption system that involves complementarity. The nature of consumption patterns as symbol systems underlies the view of fashion as a strategy to communicate one’s image, which is a picture that one wishes to project to win approval, respect, or prestige by

88Fashion-ology

appearing stylish, sophisticated, or chic, and it functions within an interpersonal network system. Like any system, fashion involves not only added effects but also interactions among its parts. Thus, one cannot treat fashion as the sum of isolated elements, but instead must consider the interrelations among its component parts. This approach is based on a structural-functionalist analysis. These components consist of complementary products so that fashion pertains not just to one product considered by itself, but rather to a number of products fitting together consistently to form a mutually reinforcing representation of the image one wishes to convey. The cultural meaning of consumer goods is shifting. Meaning is constantly flowing to and from its several locations in the social world, aided by the collective and individual efforts of designers, producers, advertisers, and most importantly, social media influencers. Contemporary culture has been associated with an increasingly materialistic or fetishistic attitude, and the symbolic dimension of consumption is increasingly becoming important. The value of fashion is its symbolic meaning, and fashionable merchandise must fill the needs of the imagination and must be appealing to consumers. Fashion is the nonmaterial dimension of modern culture. Fashion develops and is produced and reproduced continuously, which results in a continuous public appetite for change; the producer offers novelties knowing that the consumer will probably accept them. While the audience of artworks consume art by watching them, the audience of fashion consumes fashion by wearing the clothes—unless they are displayed in a museum setting. This is the stage that is most crucial in the ideology of fashion because fashion as a belief is represented as a material object. According to Bourdieu (1984), if there is a principle of organization to all forms of social life, it is the logic of distinction. In any differentiated society, individuals, groups, and social classes cannot escape this logic, and it brings them together while separating them from one another. The boundaries that we create are symbolic. Cultural consumption plays a central role in the process. Therefore, analyzing the different relations that people have with cultural objects helps us understand domination and subordination. Fashion can be used as a conceptual tool to understand the nature of symbolic activity.

Social Visibility of Fashion In dealing with fashion consumption, we have to consider the group mentality of those who adopt and wear fashion. Mass-fashion diffusion and consumption can be explained as a process of collective behavior among large numbers of people. They believe that whatever they are wearing is fashion. According to (Lang and Lang 1961: 323), the fashion process is an elementary form of collective behavior, whose compelling power lies in the implicit judgment of an

Designers and Consumers

89

anonymous multitude. Individuals perceive societal clothing norms on television, in magazines, in movies, and on the streets of cities and evaluate their own fashion adoption in the light of these perceptions. Fashion can be analyzed as a process of the collective selection of a few styles from numerous competing alternatives. Innovative consumers may experiment with many possible alternatives, but the ultimate test in the fashion process is the competition between alternative styles for positions of “fashionability.” Consumers try to discover the items of clothing that are defined as fashionable. The increasing social visibility of a new style is the key to collective behavior in fashion. Mass-fashion marketing and the mass communication of information on new styles tend to homogenize and standardize consumer tastes, because the styles manufactured and promoted often resemble one another, even when many different manufacturers and retailers are involved in the fashion business. When a style is defined as fashionable, the apparel industries make copies of that style. The media and fashion advertisements or editorials in particular also confer social status and prestige on new fashions, building their social desirability and encouraging consumers to accept them. There is a tremendous amount of social visibility and a constant urge to be different from others, but not too different, only slightly different.

Consumers as Active Fashion Producers and Influencers Fashion information used to come mainly from one source: Paris. Consumers throughout the world who were fashion conscious emulated the French style, which epitomized and legitimated the most aesthetic appearance. Historically, fashionable clothing was consumed by those of high social standing and those with substantial fortune, who could afford to indulge themselves in both a luxurious lifestyle and extravagant clothing. In the days when consumers were less fashion conscious, designers and manufacturers tried to influence or even manipulate the public, though the public could, and often did, refuse to accept their suggested style changes. Today, the industry as a whole cannot impose fashion change, and no one individual designer can impose a radical change in style. It is not only the rich or upper classes who are consumers of fashion. Fashion is not confined to those who consider themselves socially or financially superior to the masses. Williams explains: “French society lost a clearly defined group at its summit to establish a model of consumption, just as that group had lost one supreme individual to direct its taste. The social terrain was leveling out. Instead of looking upward to imitate a prestigious group, people were more inclined to look at each other. Idolatry diminished; rivalry increased” (1982: 56). In the twenty-first century, with an increasing development of various social media tools, fashion is personified not only by professional designers but also by

90Fashion-ology

amateur fashion enthusiasts who become extremely popular and achieve influential power over their peers and consumers of their own generations. Therefore, the deprofessionalization of fashion has accelerated and intensified further in the digital age. Popularity, fame, and reputation can be attained by any consumer if they are posting the right images and are able to attract followers who in turn will make them the fashion professionals. This is further explored in the next chapter.

Conclusion Designers needed to be legitimated to be successful and, therefore, they must be members of the system or participate in it. For that, they needed to come to one of the fashion cities where the system is in place. The fashion-ological perspective of these designers, although they are important in the production of fashion, is that they are a part of the collective production of fashion in which large numbers of people participate. In modern and postmodern societies, consumption and production are complementary, and, therefore, production does not take place within a completely separate sphere in relation to the broader social context of consumption. The relationship between production and consumption in the particular culture industry called fashion have been explored. Both empirical research and theoretical understanding are equally important and related through the ways in which products are circulated and given particular meanings through the range of production-consumption relationships. The meaning-making processes and practices do not simply arise out of one autonomous sphere of production but also out of consumption. Distinctions and differences between fashion and anti-fashion, high fashion and mass fashion, men and women, and rich and poor, among many other social categories, are disappearing and breaking down, especially in the digital era where fashion enthusiasts congregate in the virtual world.

Guide to Further Reading Crewe, Louise (2017), The Geographies of Fashion: Consumption, Space and Values, London: Bloomsbury. English, Bonnie (2013), A Cultural History of Fashion in the 20th and 21st Centuries: From Catwalk to Sidewalk, London: Bloomsbury. Fine, Ben, and Ellen Leopold (2002), The World of Consumption: The Material and Cultural Revisited, London: Routledge. Friedman, Milton (2015), A Theory of Consumption Function, Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books. Lantz, Jenny (2016), The Trendmakers: Behind the Scenes of the Global Fashion Industry, London: Bloomsbury. Pedroni, Marco (2013), From Production to Consumption: The Cultural Industry of Fashion, Oxfordshire: Inter-disciplinary.net.

5 THE PRODUCTION, GATEKEEPING, AND DIFFUSION OF FASHION

The fashion system creates symbolic boundaries between what is fashion and what is not fashion and also determines what the legitimate aesthetic taste is. Producers of fashion, including designers and other fashion professionals who are agents of fashion, make a contribution in defining a taste that is represented as items of fashionable clothing. After clothes are manufactured, they go through the transformation process and the mechanism of fashion production passing through different institutions. Individuals involved in the production of clothing manufacture garments, and then those items must go through the legitimation process and pass the criteria set by the gatekeepers1 of fashion before they are disseminated to the public. As noted in Chapter 4, designers are involved in both clothing and fashion production processes, and without the designers, there would be no fashion to start with. However, the designers alone cannot produce fashion, nor can they sustain the fashion system that leads to the making of fashion culture. Other producers of fashion besides designers, such as advertisers and marketers, also make a major contribution to fashion culture. Fashion is about change and the illusion of novelty. Those who take part in the production of fashion help create the ideology of fashion and determine which items of clothing will be defined as fashion and fashionable. The link between the production/distribution of clothing and the dissemination of the idea of fashion is interdependent. The apparel industries serve as the primary traffic builders and producers of profitable sales for, first of all, the customers of the textile industries and are, in turn, dependent on the retailers for the purchase and distribution of the goods they manufacture. The fashion system has two types of diffusion agents: (1) designers who take part in seasonal fashion shows in Paris, London, Milan, and New York, and are frequently the

92Fashion-ology

very conspicuous individuals who establish themselves as arbiters of good taste and surround themselves with a cult of personality, and (2) fashion journalists, editors, advertisers, marketers/merchandisers, and publicists. We must find out the actual agencies through which fashion works so that we can review concrete ways in which fashion is formed and felt. This chapter explores diffusion theories of fashion from individual and institutional perspectives, aesthetic judgments of fashion, diffusion strategies, such as fashion dolls in the past and fashion shows today, fashion propaganda through the use of advertising, and technological influences on fashion diffusion.

Diffusion Theories of Fashion Diffusion theories of fashion seek to explain how fashion is spread through interpersonal communication and institutional networks, and they assume that the fashion phenomenon is neither ambiguous nor unpredictable. As Horn and Gurel explain: When clothing behavior is expressed in fashion, the behavior is still regular and predictable. Fashions in any area of life, especially fashions in clothing, are not random and purposeless. They reflect the cultural patterns of the times. Fashions follow a progressive and irreversible path from inception through acceptance to culmination and eventual decline, and they also tend to parallel to some extent the larger events of history. (1975: 2) Diffusion is the spread of fashion within and across social systems. Whereas the adoption process focuses on individual decision-making, the diffusion process centers on the decision of many people to adopt an innovation. How fast and how far an innovation diffuses is influenced by several factors: formal communications from the mass media, personal communications among current adopters and potential adopters, the persuasive influence of consumer leaders and other agents, and the degree to which the innovation is communicated and transferred from one social system to another. It is often believed that it is the designers who impose a new fashion upon the public in order to stimulate the market and the economy. But clothing manufacturers are necessary because they work with fashion producers who produce the idea of fashion. Consumers always want something fashionable and follow fashion because fashion is believed to be desirable. Diffusion theories of fashion can focus on individuals, which can give a smallscale analysis, and on institutions, which is a systematic, large-scale approach. One can take into account both psychological and sociological elements in the fashion diffusion. Fashion can be studied either from the point of view of the

The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion

93

individual, as the early psychologists indicated, or from the point of view of the structure and function of society as a whole, as many sociologists would do. Fashion adoption and diffusion could also be the result of individual aspirations and necessities as they are formed by the social system with which the individual comes into contact.

Influential Leaders of Fashion Diffusion In the context of clothing fashion adoption, innovativeness and opinion leadership are highly related. Moreover, in societies oriented toward change, the overlap of innovation and opinion leadership is greater than in more traditionoriented cultures. Diffusion theories of fashion seek to explain how fashion is adopted by many people within a social system. A social system might be the residents of a city, the students of a school, a group of friends, or any other group of individuals who regularly interact. Each interaction can be considered an act of communication through which information and influence concerning an innovation, such as a new style of clothing, can be spread. According to Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955), informal person-to-person communication influences everyday situations, and their study shows that verbal personal influence was the most effective type of communication in fashion situations. It was the reaction of friends and acquaintances or salespeople on seeing a woman’s hairdo or dress that counted, and in most cases, women influence other women like themselves. Approval and admiration will encourage behavior of the same kind; disapproval or disdain will tend to bring about a change in dress. In this way, fashion diffusion can first be explained from a microscale interpersonal perspective. Communications can also enter a social system from other social systems. Ultimately, awareness of the innovation is diffused to most members of the social system through the combined influence of external sources and interpersonal communications within the system. Then the innovation is recognized as fashion, and for that, legitimation is indispensable. Legitimizing newly introduced forms of elements of dress as fashion is a step required for their acceptance. Various mechanisms for legitimizing fashion change have prevailed at different times in the history of fashionable dress. One has been the use of fashionable forms of dress by well-known, high-prestige figures, whose stamp of approval signals to those of lesser social visibility or eminence that a new fashion is acceptable and desirable. The influential leaders of fashion diffusion have ranged from politically powerful kings, such as Louis XIV, to those associated with such a ruler, for instance, Louis XIV’s and Louis XV’s mistresses, including Madame de Montespan, Madame de Maintenan, Madame de Pompadour, and Madame du Barry, to celebrities, such as actors, actresses, and singers.

94Fashion-ology

The fashion system invents new cultural meanings, and this invention is undertaken by opinion leaders who help shape and refine existing cultural meaning, encouraging the reform of cultural categories and principles. These groups and individuals are sources of meaning for the masses, and they invent and deliver symbolic meanings that are largely constructed by prevailing cultural coordinates established by cultural categories and cultural principles. These groups are also permeable to cultural innovations, changes in style, value, and attitudes that they then pass along to the subordinate parties who imitate them (McCracken 1988: 80). Therefore, in order to understand the diffusion of fashion, we must first consider the roles played by those social groups most directly connected with its propagation. It does not matter who plays the roles, but it is very important that the roles are played. In the aristocratic society of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe, the fashion leaders were members of royalty. Their showcases were the royal courts. The best artisans were called upon to adorn the sumptuously elegant costumes that were paraded in the splendid setting of the French court. As patrons of the theater, royal families donated their clothes to their favorite actors, making the theater a vehicle for popularizing the fashions set by the royal court (Brenninkmeyer 1963). This policy continued in France until the Revolution, when actresses began creating their own costumes for the stage. Then a period of deterioration followed, and it was not until the years 1875–1918 that the theater again became the center for fashion inspiration. Fashions began to emerge from stage costumes, and hairstyles often acquired the names of the actresses who wore them. In democratic societies where there are no royals, politicians’ wives, such as Jackie Kennedy, and celebrities, like Madonna, have become the leaders of fashion. The works of the designers receive attention when the designs are worn by celebrities and dignitaries. In this way, producers of fashion and consumers of fashion complement each other in maintaining the ideology of fashion. Fashion cannot be entirely accounted for in terms of individuals, on the side of either the producers or the wearers. For a new style to become fashionable, it must in some way appeal to a large number of people. The clothing habits of an individual are the result of group life.

Institutional Diffusion In the 1960s and 1970s, when much of the work on fashion using diffusion models was done, diffusion models were conceptualized as relatively unorganized interpersonal processes, but today, fashion diffusion is highly organized and managed within cultural production systems that are intended to maximize the extent of diffusion (Crane 1999: 15). Similarly, according

The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion

95

to Sorokin, diffusion is not limited to voluntary imitation: “Some values are imposed, some others penetrate before a population even has an idea of these values … [they] want them because they have come in contact with them or because they have been imposed … Therefore, one cannot claim that in penetration of the values, the inner desire to have them precedes the outer acceptance of them” (1941: 634). Fashion-ology looks at the macro-institutional and micro-personal diffusion methods. People diffuse specific items of clothing as fashionable because they believe that they are fashionable. Therefore, we must investigate how the consumers come to know them as the fashionable items of the time. However, large-scale diffusion processes such as those affecting fashionable clothing are difficult to study systematically (Crane 1999: 13), and so what Fashion-ology can provide is individuals and institutions involved in the diffusion process of fashion, and it does not try to discover exactly how long items of garments take to be labeled as fashion and remain fashionable. Changes in the relationships between fashion organizations and their publics have affected what is diffused, how it is diffused, and to whom. The source of fashion diffusion used to be a highly centralized system, initially starting in Paris. Innovators belonged to a community that could be understood in terms of Becker’s concept of an art world, a cluster of individuals and organizations involved in the production, evaluation, and dissemination of a specific form of culture (1982). Fashion worlds comprised designers, publicists, owners of trendy fashion boutiques, and local fashion publics, consisting of fashion-conscious individuals. Opinion leaders included editors of leading fashion magazines and highly visible fashion consumers, such as society women, movie stars, and popular music stars (Crane 1999: 16). Awareness of fashion innovations was stimulated by fashion printed in fashion magazines and periodicals. There is a view that the centralized fashion system has been replaced by another system, and according to Crane (1999), fashion designers in several countries create designs for small publics in global markets. Trends are now set by fashion forecasters, fashion editors, and department store buyers. Industrial manufacturers are consumer driven, and market trends originate in many types of social groups, including adolescent urban subcultures, and consequently, fashion emanates from many sources and diffuses in various ways to different publics (Crane 1999: 13). At the same time, the distinction between production and consumption is becoming increasingly hazy and blurry. The diffusion of fashion has become more difficult to study because the creation of fashion has become less centralized. The increasing decentralization and complexity of the fashion system has necessitated the development of fashion forecasting, which began in 1969. Forecasters consult with fabric designers to predict colors and fabrics a few years before a particular style is marketed.

96Fashion-ology

Sociological Theories of Fashion Diffusion Diffusion studies point out that they are addressing the spread of an item, idea, or practice over time as well as adopting individuals, groups, or corporate units that are embedded in channels of communication, social structures, such as networks, communities, or classes, and social values or culture (Katz , Levin, and Hamilton 1963: 147). Sociological theories of fashion diffusion emerge out of the classical discourse discussed in Chapter 2. Two sociological models of diffusion have generally been applied to fashion. First, the classical model of the diffusion of fashion, exemplified by Simmel’s theory that new styles are first adopted by upper-class elites and then the working class. The social processes underlying this model are imitation, social contagion, and differentiation (McCracken 1985). Tarde (1903) did an empirical study of public opinion and mass communication and made diffusion central to his thinking. He used the concept of imitation as the basis for his general theory and especially for his theory of diffusion. He talks about the direction of flow, typically from superior to inferior, which has been called trickledown theory, and also explains the general proposition that the diffusion of ideas precedes their material expression. He insists that desires precede the means of their satisfaction and that belief precedes ritual, which is a collective action. Second, the alternative to this top-down model is a bottom-up model in which new styles emerge in lower-status groups and are later adopted by higher-status groups. Both models assume widespread adoption of a particular fashion and a process of “social saturation” in which the style or fad eventually becomes overused (Sproles 1985). In the second model, the innovators generally emerge from communities in urban areas that are seedbeds for other types of innovation, such as popular music and the arts. To be disseminated to a larger audience, innovations have to be discovered and promoted. According to Crane (1999: 16), innovators tend to be small firms that are created by individuals who belong to the communities in which the innovations originate. If the style or fad shows signs of becoming popular, large firms begin to produce their versions of it and market it aggressively.

Gatekeepers: Making Aesthetic Judgments Articles about fashion are featured regularly in most national and local newspapers, as well as in magazines for women. Despite its high profile in the media, fashion is not generally regarded as a topic serious enough to appear on the “real news” pages. Fashion is a luxury and is considered trivial, frivolous, and fun. As discussed in Chapter 1, this accounts for the way fashion is treated as a

The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion

97

woman’s topic—even men’s fashions appear on women’s pages of newspapers and in women’s magazines, and it is assumed that women are interested in fashion in a way that most men are not (Rouse 1989). However, fashion writings in the print media have important functions for fashion diffusion. In order for designers to be known and become world famous, they need to be legitimated by those who have the power and authority to influence, such as editors from major fashion magazines. Recognition by them gives the designers the prestige and confirmation that they are talented. Fresh ideas in fashion design or any field of creative endeavor are news, and new styles attract attention, especially in a culture where people tend to believe that everything new is admirable. The creative couture designer and his or her high-fashion models are widely reported in the mass media, which confers status. A rise in the social standing of individuals and/or things commands favorable attention in print or on the air. Every fashion periodical, whether it caters to the fashion professionals, the high-fashion world, women in general, or the younger population, enjoys the trust of and acceptance by a large portion of the audience it serves. The items it reports are accepted as “superior” pieces and the magazine is considered an important source of information to its readers. Fashion is the grand motor force of taste (Bell 1947 [1976]: 89), and the influence of fashion goes beyond individual taste and our past perceptions of fashion; it molds our concept of what is beautiful. In his analysis of taste and social structure, Bourdieu (1984) presents both an empirical study of consumer habits and an interpretive theory that sees in clothing or fashion a communication and representation of more general orientations to lifestyles. In his surveys of the French population, he found sharp differences in both the clothing worn and the nature of clothing/fashion among various classes and occupational groups. Aesthetics and beauty are not important for the blue-collar working class as they focus on functionality. Among the bourgeoisie, the opposite is the case. Clothing is a way to express their aesthetic taste. They are preoccupied with considerations of aesthetic consequences. Bourdieu reads the empirical differences as evincing the existence of distinctive class-based tastes, as part of the fundamental and deep-seated styles of life. The bourgeoisie deny the primary, material function of clothing and fashion. The metaphoric attributes are connected by a common vision of the world, by a way of stylizing activity. People’s taste in clothing and desire to be viewed as fashionable are constructed by institutional factors. The history of fashion in the West is the history of an ever-changing conception of beauty, an aesthetic that is continually dying and forever being renewed. Social scientists concerned with aesthetics differ in orientation from scholars more clearly associated with aesthetic or humanist fields (Zolberg 1990: 53). For instance, art historians assume that beauty is inherent, and it is their job to discover absolute beauty. Based on that premise, no one creates fashion, for we are born into a society in which fashion already exists; it exists because it pleases

98Fashion-ology

and, because it pleases, our aesthetic affections are predetermined for us (Bell 1947 [1976]: 90–1). But for social scientists, beauty is a social construction, and anything can potentially become beautiful and aesthetic, and it depends on the context in which it is placed. Most participants in the system make aesthetic judgments frequently. The judgments produce reputations for the designers and their works. Thus, the participation becomes crucial. The value of fashion arises from the consensus of the participants in the fashion system, and those participants who control access to distribution channels become influential. People search for fashionable items because they are made to believe that fashion is better and more aesthetic than non-fashion. Writers and reporters of fashion can be divided into two groups (Kawamura 2004): journalists and editors. Both play a large part in making a style the fashion, for they can interpret a designer’s ideas to a public that is not comprised of fashion professionals and give them immense publicity. Their choice is of great significance to designers and buyers alike. The fashion gatekeepers resemble in this respect the gatekeepers in the world of art (Becker 1982) and music (Hirsch 1972). It is their responsibility to observe innovations and decide what is fashion and what is not, or what is ephemeral and what will endure. After they have completed their process of selection and evaluation, they engage in a process of dissemination with which they make their choices known. Journalists and editors are gatekeepers, and they review aesthetic, social, and cultural innovations as they first emerge and judge some as important and others as trivial. They, along with consumers, have the power of discovering interesting new designers. Fashion is an important influence on what we wear and what we think. Consumers are informed of fashionable clothes, fashionable shapes of colors, fashionable bodies, fashionable faces, and fashionable people. Above all, fashion magazines have an important function to fulfill because they directly serve the interests of the fashion industry. They diffuse ideas to encourage the selling of the latest styles. These magazines appeared prior to and after the First World War and have since profited immensely from the improvements in the techniques of photography and illustration (Brenninkmeyer 1963: 82). The art of fashion photography that began in the 1920s steadily improved over the years and can be used as an important visual record. It has, at the same time, accelerated fashion promotion. It has now become one of the most important means of fashion propaganda to be seen in magazines and newspapers.

Fashion Journalists Fashion journalists write for daily papers whose reports reach a large public. The fashion journalist is usually only a reporter and not a critic. Architects, painters,

The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion

99

writers, or musicians expect their work to be severely criticized by critics and must brace themselves to receive critical remarks, but not the fashion designer. In order to create a mystique, and possibly because fashion is too ephemeral for a standard of comparison to be established, harsh criticism is more often the exception than the rule. This creates a very different climate from the conventional art criticisms and reportage and is largely responsible for the vast amount of descriptive writings about fashion. One of the most controversial issues in mass-media reporting is the conflict between the advertising department and editorial comment. Because the mass media are mainly supported by investments from advertisers rather than from subscribers, it is difficult for the journalists to report fashion news impartially. Designers become the beneficiaries of fashion reporting, which can bring fame and notoriety to their names, and the supplies of advertising money keep the magazines in business. This reciprocal dependency does not encourage unbiased fashion reporting.

Fashion Magazine Editors Fashion editors write for fashion magazines, where the role of a writer merges into the role of merchandiser/stylist. While the journalists’ major task is fashion reportage, fashion editors are directly connected to retail stores and indirectly to manufacturers. They together play a major role in producing fashion as an image and maintaining and continuing the belief in fashion. Fashion is portrayed in such a way that it is desirable and highly valued in society. Fashion editors and buyers, both from stores and the wholesale trade, frequently confer together, for one wants to tell her readers where the new fashions can be found, and the other knows that magazines mold public opinion and can help to sell their goods. This is a collaboration between press and trade. A good fashion editor can be the pivot around which revolves the whole complicated apparatus of launching a new idea, all parts of which must be carefully coordinated if it is to be successful. Once a decision is made to promote a certain line or color, all the selected manufacturers of garments, fabrics, and accessories must be approached and who then agree to cooperate in order to produce the required goods at the right time. The advertising managers of the various firms, in addition to those of the shops who will eventually retail the goods, arrange publicity, and possibly take space in the editor’s paper; the store buyers agree to carry sufficient goods to back the advertising campaigning, the manufacturers to deliver at a given date, and the stores to devote window displays to the new idea, in which enlargements of the magazine’s pages will probably feature. All these phases must coincide with each other and with the date of publication. Thus, an editor’s selection of just one style from a couture house in Paris may ultimately result in a series of window displays throughout

100Fashion-ology

the country, the sale of many thousands of dresses, and the boosting of a new fashion. The fashion editor, however, has two potent weapons: silence and space. She can ignore collections she considers bad, and she can give the largest possible amount of space to those she thinks are good, with priority in placing and any preference, if any, for color reproductions. Like fashion reporters, few editors can totally ignore advertisers and their demands, for it is on advertising revenue that a fashion paper depends.

Diffusion Strategies from Fashion Dolls to Fashion Shows Fashion Dolls At one time, new styles were suggested to clients by sketches accompanied with bolts of material, or if a complete dress was produced, it was shown on a wooden dummy, not worn by a living woman. Long before life-size models had been thought of, fashion dolls, or milliner’s mannequins, as they were called, were used to spread the knowledge of new fashions. They were said to be the first means of circulating the latest styles of dress. It became the practice in Paris to display two life-size dolls dressed in the current fashions. “La Grande Pandora” was fitted out from head to toe each time the fashions changed. The smaller ones, “La Petite Pandora,” even wore the appropriate underclothes. As early as 1391, Charles VI of France sent the Queen of England full-size dolls wearing the latest styles made to the Queen’s measurements (Diehl 1976: 1). French fashion dolls2 became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and were sent to all parts of Europe, and as far away as Russia, by milliners, dressmakers, and hairdressers. They were considered indispensable to the general export of French fashion novelties. These dolls illustrated current styles in real jewelry as well as hair and dress styles. As France and the French court became politically powerful, the European capitals became very dependent on the flow of dolls from France for fashion news. Rose Bertin, the best-known French dressmaker of her day, also used the dolls as advertisements for her services. She outfitted Marie-Antoinette and her model dolls in her creations. A woman selected a pattern or a style from a fashion doll. She would next select fabric and trimmings, and her final stop would be the dressmaker’s shop, where the garment was made according to specifications. The popularity of fashion dolls lasted well into the nineteenth century, when they were gradually superseded by French fashion plates and, later, fashion magazines (Diehl 1976: 2).

The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion

101

Fashion Shows What is a fashion show? By definition, a fashion show is a presentation of merchandise on live models. A good show makes one or more general statements about fashion while at the same time showing individual and specific items to support or illustrate these comments. The items must be authoritative, pulled together, and edited by the store for the customer (Diehl 1976: 16). The fashion shows we have today began in France after the institutionalization of fashion. The living mannequin was the invention of the British couturier in Paris, Charles Worth. When he opened his own store in 1858, he not only revolutionized couture by designing for an individual woman’s type and personality, but he also used his wife, Marie, to model his creations in his salon. As he became more successful, he employed a number of mannequins to show his collections to consumers, and those mannequins walked about in the salon or down the runway. By the early 1900s, the use of live models to show fashions to private customers and the press was well established, both inside the couture houses and outside, at special galas and social events (Diehl 1976: 7). By 1911, even in the United States, living models were used as a regular part of fashion promotions for retailers as well as manufacturers. The fashion show owes a great deal of its development to the inventiveness of Worth and showmanship of Paul Poiret. While Worth created the modern couture, Poiret extended its range. Poiret radically changed the feminine silhouette and, in the process, developed techniques of fashion promotion that we continue to use. He used his promotional instincts to generate free publicity. He toured chic resorts, Russia, and various other countries, making personal appearances and giving fashion shows that were tremendous successes. He was among the first couturiers to parade mannequins at the races, showing pieces from his latest collection to great effect. Throughout his career, he entertained on a lavish scale, throwing huge parties, theatrical presentations, and costume balls. They were colorful extravaganzas, well covered in the press (De Marly 1980a). The House of Paquin also made several contributions to the fashion show. The couturier was more conservative than Poiret, but Paquin began the practice of showing at big social gatherings. He paraded his models at the racetrack and at opening nights at the opera. Paquin also staged a tableau as the finale to his openings; in one show, he presented twenty mannequins in white evening dresses. Patou also had an impact on the fashion show in several areas. He introduced gala evenings, which were aimed at Paris society and even more strongly at the press.

The Significance of Fashion Shows The fashion show is a tool of retailing with one basic purpose: to sell merchandise. The show must have entertainment value to hold the audience’s attention. Another reason for a show might be public relations.

102Fashion-ology

Clothes are sold via a “merchandising” approach. A fashion is created and promoted to the retailer who stocks it. It is touted in the fashion publications and appears so irresistible that the consumer goes to their favorite store and buys it. The primary thrust in fashionable items is toward trade. The retailer is critical because the consumer must be able to see, feel, and try on the article for a sale to be made in the store they shop at. Conversely, the sale cannot be made if the article is not accessible to the consumer. Clothes are merchandised and marketed as fashion, and they are pushed through the distribution pipeline from manufacturer to retailer to consumer. The marketing approach requires for the needs of the consumer to be identified specifically, and either a new product is created to satisfy a need or an existing product is repositioned or remarketed in line with that need. Advertising to the consumer has concentrated on creating desire for fashion while it is clothing that satisfies the need. Fashion has been the ingredient that sells clothing. Clothing is a basic human need while fashion is not. This is one way to differentiate fashion from clothing. Authoritative fashion statements made by journalists and editors must go beyond the clothing to include accessories and beauty hints included in the broad area covered by the word “fashion,” and in presenting the fashion story, they must include all the elements of a good, newsworthy story. Fashion shows have been particularly important for fashion dissemination. A strategy used by French fashion professionals was to centralize fashion in Paris to keep Haute Couture with a Paris label as a privilege of an elite. Copies of French styles and designs were the next best thing to couture. In return for an agreement to purchase toile,3 paid for in advance as part of the entry ticket, buyers attended the collections and selected designs to put into production. La Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Parisienne, a couture trade organization established in 1911, was responsible for timetabling the shows and enforcing strict rules governing publicity and reproduction. Photography and sketching were forbidden. At the cheaper end of the market, mass manufacturers relied on published sources, including the increasing number of fashion forecasting journals. Fashion magazines relayed the highlights of the Paris collections to an international audience (Mendes and de la Haye 1999: 139).

Technological Influences on Fashion Diffusion It is also important to remember that fashionable clothes became widely available due to technological advances in clothing manufacturing. Fashion was democratized at a fast pace after the invention of sewing and embroidery machines. Worth’s big business was helped a great deal by technology. De Marly explains: Charles Frederick Worth would not have thrived without the technological developments of the day. For instance, the scale of his international

The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion

103

dressmaking was only possible throughout the growth of railway, steamship and telegraph systems. Also, Maison Worth could not have turned out hundreds of ball gowns a week, without the improvement in sewing machines to do most of the seams; the finishing, of course, was still by hand. By 1871, he had a staff of 1,200 which was a very different scale of business from the dressmaker with a few dozen seamstresses in her attics. (1980a: 23) Technological advances started a chain reaction throughout interrelated industries. For instance, sheer wool did not become fashionable until the mechanization of the combing operation made the worsted industry possible. Form-fitting knitted underwear and thin stockings followed the invention of suitable knitting machinery. The enormous expansion of the women’s garment and fashion industries was the result of technical and industrial interrelationships. A shift from the production of garments in the home to large-scale production in the factory is dependent upon a ready supply of cloth, which is dependent on the availability of yarn. Lower costs, which increase consumption and enlarge production, are dependent upon the invention of suitable stitching machinery which, in turn, is dependent on the availability of suitable sewing thread, which is dependent on the development of mechanical combs. Furthermore, modern society has resulted in mass production, and improved methods of transport and distribution have made it possible to supply copies of all the newest and most exclusive models rapidly, in great numbers, and at relatively low prices, so that women of moderate means in small provincial towns can wear clothes of practically the same design as those that were introduced by the leaders of fashion.

Fashion Propaganda through Advertising Ideas about fashion are spread through the population by organized means of mass propaganda. One function of fashion propaganda through advertising is to stimulate a desire for the same thing at the same time in a large number of people to build collective belief among consumers. In the technical and industrial age in which we live, the possibilities of influencing masses of people are innumerable. Merton defined propaganda as “any and all sets of symbols which influence opinion, belief or action on issues regarded by the community as controversial” (1957: 265). Individuals are always on the lookout for what they should have, do, or look like, to fit into the appropriate group structure because the majority of modern people no longer live under the influence of ancestral traditions. People in modern society are susceptible to all kinds of

104Fashion-ology

propaganda. They read newspapers, current periodicals, advertisements, and films to discover what the latest fashion trends are. They wear what other people would like to see them in, and thus it becomes important for them to know what is fashionable and what may fit into the framework of social life. The immediate aim of advertising is to make a product known; in a broader sense, it helps to overcome inertia and stimulate people to action. Advertising works as a potential method of the meaning transfer by bringing the consumer goods and a representation of the culturally constituted world together within the frame of a particular advertisement. They visualize the fashion belief in a more material sense, and therefore, they must be attractive and desirable so they make consumers want to be fashionable. According to Millerson (1985: 102), to a greater or lesser extent, all fashion products tend to be aspirational: the product is positioned substantially or slightly above consumer reality toward the kind of person the target group would like to be, and society creates people’s desire to purchase and willingness to wear new as opposed to past fashion looks. The consumer is swayed by advertising in areas where it really does not matter. One may switch from one fashion brand to another only because it appears to make a little difference, and one feels that there is a difference. This is why a great deal of investment goes into national brand advertising. If the consumer can be made brand conscious and brand loyal, even in an unimportant area, it can mean financial success for a company or a designer. The brand name in fashion can stand for the designer, the manufacturer, or the store, and fashion journalists and editors always have news to report simply by showing the latest styles. The purpose of using brands is to build a market. A brand is a device, sign, or symbol that is used to identify products so the advertiser can reap the benefits of any demand created. Through a brand name, the manufacturer hopes to build prestige for their product, to differentiate it from others in the consumer’s mind, and lessen price competition by creating loyal customers who are reluctant to accept other brands. Brand names help consumers repeat a purchase found to have been satisfactory or avoid one that is unsatisfactory. Where fashion companies specialize in one area of design, fashion goods labels become identified with a design style and occasion type of garment, offering certain quality at a certain price. As long as the designer is consistent with the image that is provided, the brand is a guide for the consumer. The use of brand names is a form of persuasive advertising, a type of propaganda. Before something can really become a fashion, it must be capable of being labeled. In retrospect, it is clear that there has been a name or phrase attached to most significant changes in fashion. A label is at first only a shorthand method of describing a new style that has been introduced by a designer or a fashion leader. If this style becomes a mass fashion, the label will become known to

The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion

105

many people, spread quickly over a wide territory, and become identified with that particular time. A label that wakens a uniform-favorable response may be necessary for the general adoption of a style. A sociological study on the effect of symbols on collective behavior has pointed out that a symbol that arouses uniform feelings toward the object is a necessary condition for uniform group action. Many examples of fashion labeling, such as Christian Dior’s A-line and H-line, seem to support the belief that it is not possible to launch an idea as fashion unless it can be labeled. “Fashion” itself is already a label, and thus a dress needs to become “fashion.” A label, some catchy slogan built around people and events, focuses attention in any campaign. Certainly a name, easy to remember, is a desired feature of any new product fighting for attention in mass-media reporting.

Trickle-up and Trickle-across Diffusions of Fashion A Marxist approach to the interpretation of fashion diffusion allows us to see the direction of fashion dissemination. Fashion disseminators were the ones who had the power to do so, and thus, it put them on a higher social pedestal than those who simply received and consumed whatever was distributed to them. The concept of class is a critical variable in defining the different subcultural options available to middle-class and working-class boys (McRobbie and Garber 1991: 2–3). Within any stratified society, there are class cultures, and subcultures can be conceptualized as subsets of these larger cultural configurations, and subcultures share elements of the larger class cultures (sometimes called the parent culture), but are also distinct from them (Brake 1980: 7). Furthermore, such discussions are related to the idea of hegemony and dominant ideology. “Hegemony” is a term used by Antonio Gramsci (1975) to describe how the domination of one class over others is achieved by a combination of political and ideological means. In modern democratic societies, certain ideologies are produced, achieved, and maintained through consent. As Hebdige says (1979: 17), “The challenge to hegemony which subcultures represent is not issued directly by them. Rather, it is expressed obliquely, in style. The objections are lodged, the contradictions displayed … at the profoundly superficial level of appearances: that is, at the level of signs.” This is evidenced in various studies of subcultures, including the phenomenon of Japanese subcultures whose aesthetic tastes are devalued, unrecognized, and unrespected. But once they become commercialized and establish a system of their own, they start to receive the attention and recognition they so deserve.

106Fashion-ology

Subcultural Commercialization as a Trickle-up Process and Legitimation When and if styles are acknowledged by large numbers of people, they can become fashion. Then those styles are commercialized and filtered into massmarket fashion and even high fashion. Although punk fashion, which helped establish London’s reputation for innovative youth style, was primarily associated with Britain, similar developments have taken shape in other parts of Europe, Japan, and New York (Mendes and de la Haye 1999: 220). However, subcultural fashions that are born out of the streets need to be diffused and legitimated as fashion. But the legitimators are no longer publicists, editors, or journalists, but are their own peers. The two designers, Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren, were instrumental in commercializing punk fashion through their store at 430 King’s Road in London and made punk fashion available to the public. Their unique and provocative designs included bondage suits, parachute shirts, string and mohair sweaters among others, and the most well-known items were T-shirts and muslin shirts with offensive slogans and graphics (Bolton 2013: 13). McLaren, the punk designer, says (quoted in Bolton 2013: 13): We messed around with imagery that basically was provocative, and more often than not, to do with sex, and if it wasn’t to do with sex it was to do with politics … It was just imagery that hopefully wouldn’t appear polite, because the last thing you wanted to do in my shop was to look polite! Who could have predicted that such styles would fascinate not only the general public but also the people in the world of high fashion, such as French Haute Couture? We see punk fashion as a system that has its own mechanism of production, consumption, diffusion, and legitimation. While it was too early in the 1970s to say that punk was the prototype of an alternative system, when we look back to what they have left behind, they had set a stage for a new system that broke various types of categorical boundaries within the fashion industry. In my previous study on the French fashion system (2004), I treat fashion as an institutionalized system that offers the theoretical underpinnings of Fashionology and explains how fashion can be studied empirically as an institution or an institutionalized system, and that there are individuals related to fashion, including designers and many other fashion professionals, who engage in activities collectively, share the same belief in fashion, and participate together in producing and perpetuating not only the ideology of fashion but also fashion culture, which is sustained by the continuous production of “fashion” (Kawamura 2018). Under this principle, the diffusion process was top down

The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion

107

while subcultural fashion took the opposite direction of bottom up. This idea can also be applied to fashion, which derives from a subculture with its own network components within the system. By popularizing a subcultural style as a fashion trend, it affects the direction of mainstream fashion with the help of the related industries in music and art among others, and they together constitute an institution and establish an alternative fashion system that is different from the mainstream system of fashion. Fashion projects an image, and an image that is created by subcultures is more clear, pronounced, and encompasses a whole lifestyle rather than merely clothes and an outfit. The image is composed of costumes, accessories, hairstyles, jewelry, artifacts, and a distinct vocabulary. Karaminas explains that the relationship between popular music, identity, and fashion is a symbiotic one: The fashion industry designs and creates garments, while popular music sells a lifestyle (aided by pop and rock stars), through the consumption of fashionable merchandise. Fashion and style are the visual counterparts to musical expression—the pose, the “look” merge to create a subcultural spectacle that is coopted by the mainstream via tastemakers, journalists, trend forecasters, fashion buyers, and so on. Businesses often seek to capitalize on the subversive allure of subcultures in search of cool, which is valuable in selling any product to a youth consumer. (2009: 349) In addition, they also offer an alternative, nonmainstream aesthetic taste. Fashion and the way individuals dress are sites where taste is contested. Subcultural fashion provides a specific and different taste culture that expresses values and standards of taste and aesthetics, and ordinary consumer goods also express aesthetic values or functions (Gans 1974: 10–11). Furthermore, Clark points out that, by the early 1970s, with commodification in full swing, some artists were said to have compromised their integrity by becoming rich stars, and with “rock” having been integrated into the mainstream, some people felt that youth subcultures were increasingly a part of the intensifying consumer society rather than opponents of the mainstream (2003: 225). Early punks were too dependent on music and fashion as modes for expression; these proved to be easy targets for corporate cooptation … Tactically speaking, the decisive subcultural advantage in music and style—their innovation, rebellion, and capacity to alarm—was preempted by the new culture industry, which mass-produced and sterilized punk’s verve. (Clark 2003: 227) Bare skin, odd piercings, and blue jeans are not a source of moral panic these days: they often help to create new market opportunities, and they may

108Fashion-ology

serve a useful function for capitalism by making stylistic innovations that can then become vehicles for new sales (Clark 2003: 229). As a result, radical subcultural groups, such as hippies, punks, and gays, use consumer goods to declare their differences, and the code becomes comprehensible to the rest of the society and gets assimilated within a large set of cultural categories (McCracken 1988: 133). Furthermore, new subcultures do not grow or expand commercially unless there are institutional supports to respond to consumer demands. Now that the sneaker subculture is spreading far and wide, it is the sneaker companies, to some extent, that take charge of the sneaker trend. No one goes around the stores, asking the salespeople to show them the back storage where they keep old sneakers and try to discover unknown sneakers. Instead, it is the sneaker companies that produce rare models and feed the collectors’ desire for them. As early as 1991, Finkelstein wrote (1996: 111) that the street is where modern classifications and claims to identity are staged, but the street is now on social media. That has become today’s catwalk where people, both professionals and amateurs, display and show off their style and fashion.

Trickle-across Theory in Practice: A Collapse of Categorical Boundaries The trickle-down theory of fashion developed in the nineteenth century was relevant at a time when there was a class structure intact, but with the use of social media and the advancement of speedy communication tools online, it is the trickle-across theory that is in practice today. Fashion is widely diffused laterally, while breaking down all the vertical as well as horizontal classificatory boundaries that used to socially separate different types of and people in fashion and create their social differences in terms of prestige and power. Some scholars interpret contemporary fashion as a postmodern phenomenon (Crane 2000; Kawamura 2012; Reilly and Cosbey 2008), and postmodernity is best characterized by the disappearance of cultural and social boundaries and categories. Postmodern elements can be found in a number of cultural phenomena, such as music, art, film, and fashion, and conventional and normative standards are either challenged or put into question. Reilly and Cosbey give an example of postmodern fashion as follows: A designer might combine a soft, flowing “romantic” shirt with a pair of black leather pants and cowboy boots. Styles traditionally associated with different occasions or levels of formality, such as a tuxedo jacket and a pair of faded jeans, may be worn together. Formal fabrics, such as satin and velvet, may be used in casual dress; casual fabrics, such as denim and jersey knit, may be used in formal wear. Styles, patterns, or techniques associated with the

The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion

109

dress or textiles from different parts of the world may be put together to form a multicultural look. (Reilly and Cosbey 2008: xv) Such new ideas of fashion reject and negate any forms of fixed stylistic definition and classification since these groupings, some with specific added values, are fluid and socially constructed and therefore, can be destroyed, reconstructed, or redefined. In postmodern cultures, consumption is conceptualized as a form of role playing, as consumers seek to project and express an imagined identity that is evolving, and social class is less evident and important in one’s self-image and identity. Differences in how people dress no longer determine one’s class or allow others to distinguish one social class from another. There is a great deal of interclass and intraclass mobility. Social identity that used to be based on the economic and political spheres is now based on something outside. Therefore, fashion as a tool for self-expression becomes extremely crucial and relevant. Crane remarks (2000: 11): “The consumption of cultural goods, such as fashionable clothing, performs an increasingly important role in the construction of personal identity, while the satisfaction of material needs and the emulation of superior classes are secondary.” Similarly, Giddens also points out (1991) that one’s style of dress conveys an initial and continuing impression-making image, and the variety of lifestyles available in contemporary society liberates the individual from tradition and enables him or her to make choices that create a meaningful self-identity.

Social Media Influencers as Gatekeepers and Disseminators In recent years, the influential power of fashion diffusion and gatekeeping has gravitated towards social media users, influencers, and followers, and the industry professionals are also collecting fashion information from them. Whether one has an official training, qualification, and experience or not in publicizing or writing about fashion is insignificant, but rather, who has more followers and how many “likes” they receive for each post is the evaluation criteria for effective fashion gatekeepers and disseminators. That is how popularity is assessed and measured in the twenty-first century. The nature of fashion has made a major transition, and fashion that used to be elitist and inaccessible has come to an end. Social media practitioners as influencers as the relevant players and agents, have been dominating the field. Marco Pedroni traces the historical framework in which the social media practitioners known as fashion bloggers and influencers have emerged and developed in the field of fashion (2022), and he breaks the social media phenomenon into four stages: between 2000 and 2020, blogs in the early 2000s (amateurs then professional), Instagram in 2010 (fashion in

110Fashion-ology

particular became dominant since 2015), and TikTok in 2020. He explains that the popularity and appeal of fashion influencers are put into numbers and stored as data that are later monetized by the influencers, marketing companies and by the platforms they operate on. Rocamora also discusses the significance of influencers and influencer marketing in the wider process of datafication and quantification of everyday life, which the field of fashion more generally participates in (Rocamora 2022). Viewers and users place their trust in the number of followers and “likes.” The field of fashion writing or journalism was very competitive since one needed to be hired by a publication to have the articles published. They also needed to be invited to various fashion shows to write about the upcoming trends. Before the invention of the internet, landing a position at a fashion magazine was no easy task. But today, anyone can create an online magazine or a fashion blog. One can become a self-proclaimed fashion critic or fashion editor instantaneously. Bloggers with unique perspectives on fashion are becoming very influential in spreading certain fashion trends. It used to be the privilege of a fashion professional as an industry insider, such as a fashion journalist, editor, or a buyer, to attend the semiannual fashion weeks in major fashion cities, but the role of fashion writers is replaced by bloggers with a large number of social media followers who are able to obtain passes to major fashion shows. Some of them are popular enough to get front-row seats because the industry knows the power of the young social media users. Famous brands are now sending invitations to them. Rocamora writes about the changes that blogs have brought to the production, circulation, and consumption of fashion discourse and also talks about the ways blogs have refashioned old media (2013). Instead of the collapsing of boundaries, she emphasizes the decentralization of fashion and explains that objects excluded from its discourse, subjects that in a print magazine have been left outside its pages, can in the fashion blogosphere become visible, and bloggers are not mere users of the internet, they are producers as well as active participants in the creation of news (Rocamora 2013: 157–58). Bruzzi and Gibson (2013) also point out: Arguably, the vectors of fashion diffusion have shifted. Models have been replaced as cover girls by celebrities, themselves absolutely central within fashion’s changed topography; the most fashion-friendly celebrities are currently assured of a place on fashion’s famous front rows, just as the most photogenic dominate the lucrative luxury-brands advertising campaigns. (Bruzzi and Gibson 2013: 1–2) The internet and fashion blogging have also influenced a niche genre of modesty fashion, such as Muslim dressing, which requires head covering, and the rise of

The Production, Gatekeeping, and Diffusion

111

online brands selling modest apparel has been accompanied by the development of a lively blogosphere devoted to modest styles (Lewis 2013). Their internet presence sheds light on those who otherwise would have never been exposed to the public. Fashion magazines retain their status and influence, but they also need an online presence; in cyberspace they are joined by bloggers and street photographers, whose power within the industry has increased rapidly (Bruzzi and Gibson 2013: 1–2). Bloggers have been legitimated and are becoming equal partners of editors and journalists (Titton 2013). In addition, the invention of digital cameras gave professionals and nonprofessionals the opportunity to take photographs more easily and casually. As a result, a growing number of semiprofessional and nonprofessional photographers started taking pictures of the youths on the streets and posting them online. It became the easiest, cheapest, and fastest way to transmit fashion information to the world for free. Such information began to affect the fashion trends that were in the past dictated by major fashion publications. But with street-style photographs came a new type of online fashion publishing. Instead of having professional models pose wearing famous fashion labels, street-fashion magazines feature fashionable teens on the streets or those with distinct subcultural styles. Amateur models are the modern-day celebrities. They do not need to be extraordinarily beautiful; they need only average beauty with a unique taste in fashion. Many photographers line the pavement looking around and waiting to take pictures of the fashionable youth. The streets have become the catwalks. Some are regulars on the streets, and they intentionally dress in such a way that attracts the photographers’ attention so that they get their pictures taken. Today, there are few fashion magazines (in print and/or online) that do not feature their own “street style” sections, while dozens of bloggers have created a career out of a hobby by working as professional photographers (Titton 2013). Street styles that used to be treated as an antithesis of proper fashion or high fashion have moved beyond such a notion. As Rocamora and O’Neill explain (2008: 190), in the course of the past twenty years, gradual commercialization has meant the loss of street-style photography’s subversive, anti-high-fashion attitude, and it has gained popularity as a genre within mainstream fashion journalism. The hierarchy that existed in different types of fashion photography has disappeared.

Conclusion The fashion system is about fashion production and not clothing production. Individuals, such as influential leaders of fashion, and institutions that help create and spread fashion, such as fashion magazines and newspaper periodicals, are

112Fashion-ology

participants in the system. When we separate clothing production from fashion production, the difference between clothing and fashion becomes even more succinct. Fashion is produced as a belief and an ideology. People wear clothes believing that they are wearing fashion because it is something considered to be desirable. Clothing production involves the actual manufacturing of fabric and shaping it into a garment. The ideology of fashion needs to be sustained so that consumers return to purchase the items of clothing that are labeled as “fashion.” The contents of fashion trends, that is, particular items of clothing, may be abandoned and replaced with new styles, but the form of fashion remains and is always considered desirable in modern, industrialized nations. In the twenty-first century, the influential power of fashion gatekeeping and diffusion is gravitating towards consumers and fashion enthusiasts who actively post the images of themselves and products on social media, and they are the ones that dominate the system and the industry relies on.

Guide to Further Reading Best, Kate Nelson (2017), The History of Fashion Journalism, London: Bloomsbury. Bradford, Julie (2014), Fashion Journalism, London: Bloomsbury. Burns, Leslie Davis, Kathy K. Mullet, and Nancy O. Bryant (2011), Designing, Manufacturing and Marketing, New York: Fairchild Books. Karen de Perthuis & Rosie Findlay (2019) “How Fashion Travels: The Fashionable Ideal in the Age of Instagram,” Fashion Theory, 23: 2, 219–42, DOI: 10.1080/1362704X.2019.1567062. McNeil, Peter, and Giorgio Riello (2016), Luxury: A Rich History, London: University Oxford Press. Nast, Conde (2013), Vogue: The Editor’s Eye, New York: Harry N. Abrams. Pedroni, Marco (2022), “Two Decades of Fashion Blogging and Influencing: A Critical Overview,” Fashion Theory, DOI: 10.1080/1362704X.2021.2017213. Posner, Harriet (2015), Marketing Fashion: Strategy, Branding and Promotion, London: Laurence King Publishing. Rocamora, Agnès (2022), “The Datafication and Quantification of Fashion: The Case of Fashion Influencers,” Fashion Theory, DOI: 10.1080/1362704X.2022.2048527. Veirman, Marijke De, Veroline Cauberghe, and Liselot Hudders (2017), “Marketing through Instagram Influencers: The Impact of Number of Followers and Product Divergence on Brand Attitude,” International Journal of Advertising, 36: 5, 798–828. DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035.

6 THE DIVERSIFICATION AND CHANGING LANDSCAPES OF THE FASHION SYSTEMS

This chapter first explores the four fashion capitals, New York, London, Milan, and Paris, which remained the major producers of fashion for decades and investigates the changing landscape of the fashion systems that have been shifting their presence to and relying on the virtual space where fashion-related items and products are visible but intangible. One of the reasons why fashion has long been believed to be a Western concept and phenomenon is because new styles are disseminated and new and experienced designers are introduced to the general public every season from the above-mentioned four leading cities in the West, and Paris has a privileged status because of the presence of exclusively custom-made clothes known as Haute Couture, which has a historical and institutional tradition in the world of fashion. This geographical power structure and a hierarchy of designers in the fashion system remained intact for a long time. Many non-French designers, such as the Belgians and Japanese, continue to take trips to Paris during Fashion Week and show their collections in search of their legitimation and recognition that grant them stable and continuing fame and reputation. Other second-tier fashion cities in different continents, such as Copenhagen, Sydney, Tokyo, and Beijing, followed suit and began organizing biannual Fashion Week like the four major cities. In recent years, Fashion Weeks that had played a significant role in fashion diffusion have become increasingly diversified and also specialized with specific stylistic expressions, such as Black Fashion Weeks, which are taking place in different cities and Modest Fashion Weeks targeting the religious communities around the world. In addition, as indicated in the previous chapters, the emergence of youth subcultures since the mid-1970s that created a new fashion aesthetic provided

114Fashion-ology

an alternative system of fashion as well, and new subcultural communities that used to congregate at particular geographical sites are now appearing online, finding peers, and strengthening their bond through hashtags (#), which is a metadata tag used to categorize and mobilize similar people. The hegemonic and authoritative nature of the traditional fashion systems has dramatically changed since the publication of the first and second editions of this book (Kawamura 2005, 2018), as consumers and the fashion public started paying attention to the metaverse on the internet and a variety of social media tools. Fashion that used to be exclusive to and centralized in Paris and the other three fashion cities is now being decentralized and destabilized. The global fashion system is moving to the diversified and democratic virtual world where there is no central location and to which most of the people in the world have access to.

The Four Leading Fashion Cities and Fashion Weeks Organizing a fashion show on an annual basis twice, four, or six times a year has been a tradition of the fashion culture in the four major cities where the mobilization of fashion professionals occurs, and the events are a major contribution to the economy of these cities as visitors stay at hotels, use public transportations, eat at restaurants, visit museums and theaters, and go sightseeing. Most of the designers organize biannual fashion shows that take place in the fall and spring to introduce new collections for the following season. Furthermore, among the four, Paris in particular stood out because it has six fashion show events a year, namely, two for women’s Prêt-à-Porter (exclusive ready-to-wear), two for men’s Prêt-à-Porter, and two for Haute Couture. The other three cities have four shows a year, two for women’s Prêt-à-Porter and two for men’s Prêt-à-Porter. Prior to the internet invention, fashion shows allowed the industry professionals, such as editors, buyers, and marketers, to see the next season’s trends prior to the general consumers since only the invited could attend the shows. In his article, “The Power Structure of the Fashion Identity; Fashion Capitals, Globalization and Creativity” (2014), Frederic Godart makes an analogy between the four fashion cities and a political system. Fashion can be analyzed as an urban space and a system that produce and reproduce an abstract image of fashion that transforms clothes into fashion (Kawamura 2018). Fashion has historically been centralized in Paris, where the latest styles are born and are followed by other cities. The world looked up to Paris fashion before and after the Second World War. As the world goes through globalization, how is the power structure of the global fashion industry changing? Godart answers that question by analyzing the fashion capitals like a political regime, such as monarchy, oligarchy, and polyarchy. The four major fashion cities are placed in the center

The Diversification and Changing Landscapes

115

of the fashion map while other cities, such as Tokyo, Seoul, Mumbai, or São Paolo, are peripheral and second-tier fashion cities. The fashion world is not flat or equal as some claim, and power is distributed unevenly, and this is based on the socially constructed image and identity of an urban fashion space that has the authority to make decisions on what fashion and trends are (Godart 2014). The fashion industry in Paris had worked hard to dominate the industry to maintain the myth of Paris, and it had managed to keep its throne for centuries (Godart 2014; Kawamura 2004 [2016]; Rocamora 2009). The city of Paris was a fashion monarchy, especially strong in womenswear, and it resulted in a very real territorialization of economic activities in the metropolitan Paris area, and then the structure of fashion became an oligarchy when London, New York, and Milan were added one by one as members of the fashion regime. Before the Second World War, Paris was known for womenswear. After the war, New York emerged as a fashion capital with the popularity of sportswear and ready-towear, and Paris further strengthened its power and image by introducing new designers, such as Christian Dior, Yves Saint Laurent, and Coco Chanel, in the 1950s. There was a new style of fashion coming out of youth subculture on the streets of London in the 1960s, and Mary Quant led the London fashion scene. London’s position was later reinforced by the punk movement of the 1970s. Furthermore, Milan was added to the oligarchy in the late 1970s as a place of production and creation, and the industrial power of Milan was combined with a long, traditional history of luxury, a strong textile industry, and skilled artisans. Paris is now part of a wider oligarchic power structure in which four fashion capitals dominate the global fashion scene (Godart 2014). Godart persuasively writes that to be a successful fashion city, there needs to be the development of the local industry sectors. He asks if fashion evolves toward a polyarchy in which power is distributed across various elites that represent all components of society and become more democratic. Two decades into the twenty-first century, while the structure of oligarchy with these four cities is somewhat present, the focus is shifting to other cities as well as the virtual world. The industry is also reconsidering the Eurocentric nature of fashion and taking into account a more racially and ethnically diverse environment in every sphere of the industry and paying attention to other non-Western cities and its local designers.

The Second-Tier Fashion Cities and Theme-Focused Fashion Weeks As the fashion industry becomes global and diverse in terms of its audience, professionals, production, distribution, consumption, trend-generating, and gatekeeping, the four major fashion cities are gradually losing their authoritative power and are perceived as less hegemonic; their status is weakening. As a

116Fashion-ology

result, many specialized, theme-focused fashion show events, such as Black Fashion Week, Modest Fashion Week, and Sustainable Fashion Week, are on the rise. Rather than focusing on a specific location or region, Fashion Weeks are becoming fragmented and more theme-based, and instead of flocking to one of the four cities, the designers choose to join and collaborate with those with common and shared interests and values.

Second-Tier Fashion Cities The fundamental elements of a fashion city are the interplay between industry, culture, retail, and design (Heim, Payne, and Ferrero-Regis 2020). I argue that the cities that organize biannual fashion shows to showcase the designers’ latest collections can also be classified into second-tier fashion cities, which establish a geographical hierarchy of fashion cities and confirm the social positions of the designers who participate in the respective Fashion Week. Over a hundred brands and designers take part during Fashion Weeks in the four capitals while there are fifty or less brands and designers in the second-tier fashion cities, which indicate less interests and enthusiasm among the industry professionals and the media to cover the shows in these cities. Rik Wenting in her book “The Evolution of a Creative Industry: The Industrial Dynamics and Spatial Evolution of Global Fashion Industry” (2008) discusses the determinants of firm competitiveness and spatial concentration in Paris, New York, London, and Milan, and explains the Dutch fashion industry and Amsterdam as an emerging second-tier fashion city. Similarly, “Independent Fashion Designers in the Elusive Fashion City” (2020) by Hilde Heim, Tizziana Ferrero-Regis, and Alice Payne looks at Brisbane in Australia as a peripheral location and uses the word “elusive fashion city,” implying that the city is a second-tier in the fashion geography but also focuses on the role that local independent fashion designers play in sustaining the local fashion identity. Furthermore, “The Productive Role of Quality Place: A Case Study of Fashion Designers in Toronto” (2011) by Deborah Leslie and Shauna Brail discusses how a city can attract and retain talented designers in Toronto through diversity, tolerance, social services, and cultural dynamism. They all compete and strive to be “the fifth fashion capital” after the four capitals. There are other cities in every continent and region that also organize biannual Fashion Week (Table 6.1), which are rarely in the major Western fashion media and do not get the global exposure. For example, in Western Europe, there are Fashion Weeks in Antwerp, Berlin, and Amsterdam; in East Europe, there are Fashion Weeks in Moscow, Kiev, Budapest, and Bucharest. The four fashion capitals have an official pact among themselves and do not overlap their schedules, and they organize their Fashion Weeks subsequently one after another; first in New York, then in London and Milan, and finally in Paris. But the second-tier fashion cities do not have such regulations, so many

The Diversification and Changing Landscapes

117

of their schedules overlap, which makes it difficult for fashion editors, journalists, retailers, and buyers to observe all of the shows and therefore are obliged to be selective. In addition, there are two or more cities within a country that organize Fashion Weeks. In Asia, China’s Fashion Week takes place in two cities, Shanghai and Beijing. Shanghai Fashion Week began in 2001 and is part of the Shanghai International Fashion Culture Festival and is supported by the Ministry of Commerce. They are now sponsored by Shanghai Textile Group. For the June 2022 show, they went digital and showcased thirty brands online. Beijing Fashion Week is slightly smaller in scale. India’s fashion shows also take place in different cities in the country, such as New Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Chennai. Japan has Tokyo and Shibuya, which focus on street youth fashion and target the younger audience. While some second-tier fashion cities are more well known than others, they are promoting the local designers before they go onto the global stage in New York, London, Milan, and Paris.

Theme-Based and Specialized Fashion Week Copenhagen is also a second-tier fashion city with only thirty-six brands attending their Fashion Week in August 2022, but its Fashion Week has been creating a buzz and gaining much popularity and attention since its announcement in 2018 on the sustainable action plan, which will further raise awareness on the industry’s environmental and social impact. Copenhagen Fashion Week will implement sustainability requirements and establish certain standards to those who wish to participate in their fashion calendar. They have issued a report on “Copenhagen Fashion Week Sustainability Action Plan 2020–2022,” and it clearly spells out the sustainability requirement, which is classified into six focus areas with a total of eighteen minimum standards that will be effective in January 2023 (Table 6.2). It is stated as follows: “To be eligible to apply for a show or presentation at Copenhagen Fashion Week, brands must comply with the minimum standards outlined below or they will not be considered for participation. Brands must be able to confirm the following statements, supported by documentation, for each of the six focus areas” (2020–2022). Many other fashion cities, first- and second-tier, are expected to follow suit after Copenhagen, as the entire fashion industry is now paying close attention to sustainability, and any brand or company that neglects the issue will not be able to survive. In addition, Sustainable Fashion Week has been taking place in different cities, such as Atlanta, Tokyo, Bristol, San Francisco, and Madrid, in collaboration with relevant not-for-profit organizations to promote circular and green fashion. The Global Sustainable Fashion Week began in Budapest, Hungary, in 2016, which is now digital. Other sustainability-related Fashion Weeks include a focus on recycling and upcycling used materials and clothes,

118Fashion-ology

Table 6.1 

Second-Tier Fashion Weeks and Cities

Region

Fashion Week Title

Location (City, Country/ State)

Western/Northern Europe

Alicante Fashion Week

Alicante, Spain

Alta RomAlta Moda

Rome, Spain

Amsterdam Fashion Week

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Antwerp Fashion Week

Antwerp, Belgium

Copenhagen Fashion Week

Copenhagen, Denmark

Frankfurt Fashion Week

Frankfurt, Germany

Helsinki Fashion Week

Helsinki, Norway

Iceland Fashion Week

Reykjavik, Iceland

Lisbon Fashion Week

Liston, Portugal

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Berlin

Berlin, Germany

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Madrid

Madrid, Spain

Athens Xclusive Designers Week

Athens, Greece

Budapest Central European Fashion Week

Budapest, Hungary

Bucharest Fashion Week

Bucharest, Rumania

Fashion Week Bulgaria Sofia Fashion Week

Sofia, Bulgaria

Fashion Week Istanbul

Istanbul, Turkey

Md Fashion Week Moscow

Moscow, Russia

Mercedes-Benz Prague Fashion Week

Prague, Czech Republic

Serbia Fashion Week

Belgrade, Serbia

Ukraine Fashion Week

Kiev, Ukraine

Bangalore Fashion Week

Bangalore, India

Beijing Fashion Week

Beijing, China

Delhi Fashion Week

New Delhi, India

Fiji Fashion Week

Suva, Fiji

Hong Kong Fashion Week

Hong Kong, China

ID Dunedin Fashion Week

Auckland, New Zealand

Lakme Fashion Week

Mumbai, India

Madras Couture Fashion Week

Chennai, India

East Europe and the Mediterranean

Asia and the South Pacific

The Diversification and Changing Landscapes

119

Table 6.1 (continued) Region

Africa

South America

United States

Fashion Week Title

Location (City, Country/ State)

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Australia

Sydney, Australia

Shanghai Fashion Week

Shanghai, China

Seoul Fashion Week

Seoul, Korea

Shibuya Fashion Week

Shibuya, Japan

Taipei Fashion Week

Taipei, Taiwan

Tokyo Fashion Week

Tokyo, Japan

Africa Fashion Week Nigeria

Lagos, Nigeria

MD Fashion Week Malta

Valletta, Malta

SA Fashion Week

Johannesburg, South Africa

BA (Buenos Aires) Fashion Week

Buenos Aires, Argentine

Bogota Fashion Week

Bogota, Colombia

Costa Rica Fashion Week

Cost Rica

Ecuador Fashion Week

Quito, Ecuador

Santiago Fashion Week

Santiago, Chile

Sao Paolo Fashion Week

Sao Paolo, Brazil

Atlanta Fashion Week

Atlanta, Georgia

Omaha Fashion Week

Omaha, Nebraska

Portland Fashion Week

Portland, Oregon

San Francisco Fashion Week

San Francisco, California

Tampa Bay Fashion Week

Tampa Bay, Florida

Source: Compiled from various websites and sources

such as Remake Stockholm Fashion Week, Remake x Refashion Week NY, and Komit Fashion Week London. In conventional fashion shows, the categories are either womenswear or menswear, but recently other categories have been recognized as a legitimate genre in the industry to show that there are different types of clothing and stylistic expressions that are fragmented, and Fashion Weeks are becoming increasingly specialized and theme-based with a specific focus. For example, Modest Fashion, which refers to clothes that are less revealing and body-conscious, is earning its own right in the current fashion industry that upholds diversity, and Fashion Week that is dedicated to modest fashion takes place in many cities in the Muslim countries, such as Dubai, Riyadh, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, and Istanbul, and also in Europe and the United States, such as Amsterdam,

120Fashion-ology

Table 6.2 

Sustainability Requirements for Copenhagen Fashion Week Participants Six Focus Areas

Eighteen Minimum Standards

1. Strategic Direction

We work strategically with embedding sustainability and international standards on human rights. We include diversity and equality in our management approach and actively consider these aspects when hiring staff, especially for management positions. We do not destroy unsold clothes from previous collections

2. Design

We design to increase the quality and value of our products economically and materially and inform our customers about the value of longevity. We find a second life for our samples.

3. Smart Material Choices

At least 50 percent of our collection is either certified, made of preferred materials or new generation sustainable materials, upcycled, recycled, or made of deadstock. We have a preferred materials list in place. We have a list of restricted substances in place, following the requirements of the EU REACH Directive, and engage with our suppliers to ensure compliance. Our collection is fur-free.

4. Working Conditions

We are committed to exercising due diligence in our supply chain according to international guidelines and standards and work with our suppliers to ensure, for example, freely chosen employment, secure employment, or no child labor. We are committed to operating a safe, healthy, and respectful working environment for all our employees, free from harassment and discrimination and where everyone enjoys equal opportunities regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, political/religious/ sexual orientation, physical appearance, and ability.

5. Consumer Engagement

Our in-store and online customer service staff is well informed about our sustainability strategy. We educate and inform our customers about our sustainability practices on multiple platforms. We do not utilize single-use plastic packaging in store or for online orders but offer recyclable, recycled, or repurposable alternatives.

6. Shows

Our set design and show production is zero waste. We do not utilize single-use plastic packaging backstage during fashion week but offer recyclable, recycled, or repurposable alternatives. We offset or inset the carbon footprint of our show.

The Diversification and Changing Landscapes

121

Table 6.2 (continued) Six Focus Areas

Eighteen Minimum Standards We are signatory of the Danish Fashion Ethical Charter and consider diversity and inclusivity when casting models.

Source: Copenhagen Fashion Week Sustainability Action Plan 2020–2 https://copenhagenfashionweek.com/assets/pdf/2020-2022-Action-Plan.pdf.

Miami, London, and Chicago. Kabul Fashion Week was organized for the first time in Afghanistan in 2017, which was denounced by the Taliban government in 2020, but the modest-clothing industry is on the rise and is estimated to reach USD 373 billion by the end of 2022, according to Thomson Reuters’ State of the Global Islamic Economy Report (2022). The definition of modest clothing varies from designer to designer or region to region. It is often loose-fitting and geometrical with less darts and tucks and does not accentuate the contour of the body. Modest Fashion primarily targets the Muslim communities where women are required to cover their heads with a headcovering, which is an important and indispensable part of their outfit. The industry is beginning to realize that this is a niche in the market, and the members of the Muslim communities have been overlooked and ignored as lucrative customers. Fashion and adornment are important for Muslim women, especially during Eid (translated as feasts and festivals in Arabic), which takes place at the end of Ramadan. Western brands are introducing a series of special collections for the Muslim Eid. H&M has released a capsule collection; D&G, DKNY, and Uniqlo also have products for them. J. Crew teamed up with Haute Hijab, a company that sells high-end scarves. Another important theme and genre in fashion is veganism, which is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products especially in food and clothes. Vegan Fashion Week was first launched in Los Angeles in 2018. They attempt to bring together sustainability and ethics in fashion while promoting the city of Los Angeles as the leading fashion location, and define Vegan Fashion as “clothing that is 100% cruelty-free,” which means no fur, leather, feathers, wool, silk, or any other animal-based fibers are used in order to protect animal welfare and thus prevent fur trade and animal agriculture. They promote veganism as a lifestyle and philosophy that is animal- and environment-friendly. Vegan designers use plant-based leather and use vegetable oil instead of petroleum oil. As discussed further in Chapter 7 of this edition, vegan leathers are made from organic plant-based resources, such as mushroom, pineapple, cactus, coffee beans, cork, and grass. Furthermore, conventional Fashion Weeks in the major four cities are often accused of being too racially biased and white-centric with the majority of catwalk models, designers, and staff being white. As a result, many minority designers feel the need to establish their own Fashion Week, hiring models

122Fashion-ology

from their own ethnic communities since minorities are underrepresented in the fashion industry. Their goal is to assert their presence and identity as a group of non-white designers. Increasingly, we find Black Fashion Weeks around the world. Black Fashion Week USA as an organization started in Chicago to give exposure to the talent and help increase the socioeconomic empowerment of African American designers and foster brand development and exposure. As a community, they are promoting African designers beyond their own countries. The first Black Fashion Week in Paris was initiated by a man who organized Dakar Fashion Week in Senegal in October 2012 with fifteen Black designers from Africa, France, the United States, and Haiti. Adama Ndiaye who held Black Fashion Week in Prague also takes the show to Montreal and Salvador de Bahia in Brazil. Similarly, Native Indian designers who had been underrepresented in mainstream fashion are organizing their own Fashion Weeks in the United States and Canada. Recently, the organizers of Fashion Week in the major cities are providing a platform for minority designers to showcase their collections and giving them more exposure since fashion professionals from all over the world mobilize in these cities at least four times a year. For example, Alberto Lopez Gomez, an indigenous Mexican weaver/designer, brought his collection to New York in 2020. Nan Blassingame, a designer from the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes in Oklahoma, showed her collection at the HiTech Moda event during New York Fashion Week in 2019. Manaola Yap, a native Hawaiian designer, also showed his collection in New York in 2017. Angela DeMontigny, who is a Cree-Metis of Canada, showcased her line in London Fashion Week in 2018. Other minority designers are establishing their own Fashion Week to expose their distinct cultural characteristics in fashion. A group of indigenous designers has started to organize Indigenous Fashion Week throughout Canada, such as Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary. Another important theme is gender, which used to be treated as a binary category that is fixed and inflexible and is now treated as fluid and complex. As Judith Butler wrote (1990), gender is a performance manifested through what individuals wear and therefore gender is not related to biology. Men are not innately linked to masculinity and maleness, and women are not innately tied to femininity and femaleness. We are socialized to be male and female based on our biological sex, and society expects us to wear appropriate gendered clothing, footwear, colors, accessories, and jewelries. This notion, which was taken for granted for centuries, has been reconceptualized, reconsidered, and redefined. Travis L. Wagner writes in his article (2021) “She Started Wearing Men’s Clothes and Acting More Masculine” that gender makes itself visible by providing visual information through clothing and dress, and that is how gender is named, and issues and context are important in naming them. Thus, another theme-focused Fashion Week on the rise is a series of shows related to transgender and nonbinary

The Diversification and Changing Landscapes

123

identities, which have become a primary theme for many fashion designers in the West as the queer and transgender communities are coming out and becoming more visible while questioning and breaking the gender dichotomy. The industry pays further attention to their styles, which are not conventional or standard male or female clothing. DapperQ, a queer style fashion magazine, started Queer Fashion Week in New York in 2013. Furthermore, Burberry, the British label, stopped separating menswear and womenswear collections and combined them both in one collection during London Fashion Week for womenswear. In 2022, Burberry collaborated with Supreme, a streetwear label, and showed the nonbinary collection in London after Paris Fashion Week, which is the last show event among the four fashion capitals.

Youth Subcultures as an Alternative Fashion System Fashion scholars are yet to compare the conventional system of mainstream fashion to subcultural fashion as an alternative system, but as discussed in the previous chapters in this book, youth subculture that emerged in the 1970s can be viewed and analyzed as a fashion system. When we focus on the role of designers, fashion gatekeepers, and the diffusion mechanism of fashion as indicated in the previous chapters, we see that the internal structure of the fashion system has changed a great deal in the past decade. Research on subcultures from a systemic viewpoint is partly an analytical extension and an application of my previous work on high fashion within the French fashion system (Kawamura 2004), which consists of various macrostructural factors as well as microinteractionist individual social networks in transforming clothing into fashion and legitimating designers’ creativity. My previous study on Japanese youth subcultures, which emerged out of the streets of Tokyo (Kawamura 2012), and a sneaker subculture, which first started as an underground community in New York (Kawamura 2016), allowed us to compare and contrast youth-fashion subcultures with high-fashion communities and theoretically examine their systemic particularities in producing, consuming, promoting, and diffusing fashion. We can examine how youth-fashion subcultures are created/produced, disseminated, maintained, reproduced, and perpetuated with the help of fashion institutions. The Japanese youth play a crucial role in forming a separate fashion community and producing the latest styles that express their subcultural affiliation and identity. Youth fashion in Japan, Tokyo in particular, is geographically and stylistically defined, such as Lolita in Harajuku and Gyaru in Shibuya. Subcultures are defined by where they congregate, the music they listen to, the celebrities they worship and idolize, the magazines they read, and, most importantly,

124Fashion-ology

the way they dress. Japanese subcultural fashion initially did not come from professional Japanese designers but is led primarily by high-school girls who have become extremely influential in controlling fashion trends in certain districts of Tokyo. It is not an exaggeration to say that they are the agents of fashion who take part in the production and dissemination of fashion. Japanese street fashion emerges out of the social networks among different institutions of fashion as well as various street subcultures, each of which is identified with a unique and original look. These teens rely on a distinctive appearance to proclaim their symbolic, subcultural identity, which, they claim, is not political or ideological. Similarly, sneaker enthusiasts, who call themselves sneakerheads, sneakerholics, or sneaker pimps, can also be treated as a subcultural group within a system (Kawamura 2016). A group that is formed by and with sneaker fans and collectors can be another case study in subcultural studies since they share many, but not all, of the determinants and variables of other youth subcultures. At the same time, they are also unique in that they are bound by one object, that is, sneakers. They worship and celebrate sneakers as an object of desire, which contains a great deal of social information. Subcultures can be constructed around any beliefs, attitudes, interests, or activities. Every subculture has its own values and norms that the participants share, and that gives them a common group or organizational identity. Sneaker enthusiasts also have their own, such as the way they keep their white sneakers immaculate and spotless, the way they tie the shoe laces, and so on.

Punk as a Prototype of a Less Structured Alternative Fashion System Dick Hebdige’s study on punk (1979) is one of the most striking examples of a subculture that has all the determinants of what a subculture in earlier days was defined as. Punk emerged from groups of unemployed youngsters and poor students in London in the mid-1970s. Their unique outward appearance was a manifestation of their opposition to the mainstream British society, and their purpose was to shock society but not to create fashion. The punks created their definition of an aesthetic taste by using objects like chains, bin liners, and safety pins that are not used by the dominant classes as adornment or fashion items. Aesthetic tastes are, after all, socially constructed, and thus any style, fashion, or item can become a good taste, even if they may appear to be vulgar, disgusting, or unsophisticated for outsiders. More than thirty years after its appearance, Bolton explained punk as follows: Punks lived in the present. Central to this philosophy, at least in England, was an anthem “No Future,” which reflected a consensus of opinion that life was without purpose, without prospect, and above all, without promise.

The Diversification and Changing Landscapes

125

It fostered a nihilism that was deliberately and knowingly mirrored in punks’ appearance. Cropped hair dyed platinum, pale, blank faces with blacked-out eyes, torn, ripped clothes held together with safety pins, and a preference for the color black all communicated a worldview that was bleak, pessimistic, and apocalyptic. (2013: 12) There was a spirit of do-it-yourself (DIY) that was prevalent in the community, and their clothes were homemade, handmade, or they slashed and ripped the clothes bought at thrift stores. They were extremely creative consumers with an intensely strong statement, who could produce and initiate “fashion” although it was never viewed as fashion at the time. Mendes and de la Haye describe the styles that shaped punk identity as follows: Clothes for both sexes included tight black trousers teamed with mohair sweaters, leather jackets customized with paint, chains and metal studs. For female punks, miniskirts, black fishnet tights and stiletto-heeled shoes, and for both sexes bondage trousers joined with straps from knee to knee. Jackets and T-shirts often featured obscene or disturbing words or images. Garments were festooned with chains, zips, safety-pins and razor blades. Hair was dyed in different colors, and shaved and gelled to create Mohican spikes, makeup … blacken eyelids and lips. Multiples earring were popular, some also pierced their cheeks and noses. It also challenged both masculine stereotypes and long-held ideals of feminine beauty. (1999: 222) Bolton also explains the widespread popularity and influence of the punk style: What unites or connects the disparate punk fashions produced between the mid- to late seventies is a fiercely independent spirit of customization. Armed with a youthful amateurism, punks took cultural production into their own hands, fashioning looks that were distinctive, innovative, and revolutionary. More than “No Future,” do-it-yourself became the battle cry of punks not only in England but the world over, extending to every aspect of punk culture, including art, film, music, and even literature. (2013: 13) Punks combined production and consumption and broke the barrier between the two stages that used to be separate. Fashion no longer started at the top and was controlled by the industry professionals. They violated any conventions and norms that society forced upon them, and their challenging message attracted a large audience, the youth in particular. It gave a sense of belonging to the youngsters who were suffering in poverty and were in search of a better identity. As Hebdige explains succinctly:

126Fashion-ology

Amongst kids, this desire for coherence is particularly acute. Subculture provides a way of handling the experience of ambiguity and contradictions, the painful questions of identity. Each subculture provides its members with style, an imaginary coherence, a clear-cut ready-made identity which coalesces around certain chosen objects (a safety pin, a pair of winklepickers, a two-tone mohair suit). Together, these chosen objects form a whole, a recognisable aesthetic which in turn stands for a whole set of values and attitudes. (1979: 23) The idea of subculture-as-negation grew up alongside punk, remained inextricably linked to it, and died when it died (Hebdige 1988: 8); however, in contrast to Hebdige’s prediction, it never died. I argue that punk had left an indelible mark in the fashion history and fashion design, and it was picked up and commercialized by the fashion industry. Most importantly, it offered an alternative system of fashion that is less structured and less authoritative than the conventional system found in mainstream fashion.

The Emergence of Mediated and Virtual Subcultures Since the outbreak of Covid-19, the world has experienced the real meaning of interacting and socializing online and virtually. We may be far from each other geographically and physically, but we can be closely connected psychologically through technology. Members of various youth subcultures were already communicating online, many of whom had never met their peers face-to-face, but this phenomenon has been accelerated and intensified in the past two years. Meanings and phenomena of youth subcultures have changed dramatically as to how and where they occur or originate from and how they congregate and interact. Prior to Covid-19, even if we connected and met online, there was always the need to meet face-to-face to deepen the relationship. In the postmodern digital era, subcultures are relocating from an onsite location to a virtual space where people have conversations synchronously and asynchronously. But their intentions and purposes are similar. TikTok, which is a short-form video-hosting service similar to YouTube, has been a major influence in the growth of youth subcultures. TikTok, owned by ByteDance, was first released in China in 2016 and later launched internationally in 2018 after merging with another Chinese company Musical.ly. Its popularity spread globally like fire and is now one of the most popular social media tools, with 1.2 billion active users as of March 2022. Users can create short videos and upload them, which can run for about sixty seconds. It is a very popular form of entertainment that allows users to watch and upload videos. Creating videos on TikTok is quite simple, and a user does not need any specialized skill or equipment. What you need is a smartphone camera. On TikTok, we

The Diversification and Changing Landscapes

127

find certain creative expressions that generate subcultures, and they come together through their interests, aesthetics, and values. These communities with like-minded users are rapidly growing on TikTok, which is a highly visual platform. Through TikTok, each virtual community creates its own aesthetic expression that binds people together who then share not only their stylistic expressions but also their values, beliefs, ideals, and lifestyles. The internet has influenced the use of the term “subculture” within the youth community as a way to separate and distinguish themselves from the mainstream and include themselves in a specific, exclusive community in the twenty-first century; as indicated earlier, they are sometimes called neo-tribes because the members are not as committed or coherent as those in the previous decades. Subcultural or neo-tribal mobilization is centralized in the digital space, which is decentralized or has multiple centers. Their virtual reality can or cannot be real, but the digital space, such as TikTok, is where people can construct and express their identity, which can be shaped and altered in any way they wish. TikTok allowed the teenagers to connect with others and mobilize through hashtags (#), which help users find a similar post or content. Hashtags are neither registered nor controlled by any one individual or group and can be used for any number of purposes. Cottagecore, also known as Farmcore or Countrycore, is a growing subculture that is sweeping TikTok. It started to appear on Instagram and Tumblr in 2017, and began gaining popularity later in 2019 and then eventually on TikTok. The styles are reminiscent of Mori Girls that became a trend in Japan a decade ago (Kawamura 2012). The members follow “farmhouse aesthetics,” which include a dress with frills at the skirt hem, floral blouses, knitted cardigans, and a picnic basket. They spend time and lead a pastoral life by baking bread, making pies, pressing flowers, reading, and farming animals. They value a romanticized idea of a simple cottage life in the countryside or the woods, living in a cabin or a cottage, which is an antithesis of a fast-spaced, technologically complex society that many live in, but ironically, they show and share their styles on social media. The Cottagecore enthusiasts need little or no technology and prefer to live as sustainably as possible. According to the description on TikTok, the symbols of Cottagecore are flower prints, knitting, plants, fruits, and vegetables. Other subcategories, such as Goblincore, Grandmacore, Fairycore, and Dark Academia, branched out from CottageCore. In contrast, E-girls and E-boys as a subculture started on social media slightly after Cottagecore in 2019. They have an anti-mainstream and unconventional aesthetic taken from cosplay, anime, goth, and hiphop, and is one of the salient subcultures on TikTok today; the #egirl/eboy aesthetic has spread to and influenced high fashion houses. They construct their own definitions of what is cool and beautiful, and call their influencers as “anti-influencers” who put on unconventional, daring, loud makeup, such as cat-eye makeup and bright pink

128Fashion-ology

blush. In contrast, E-boys create an androgynous look and style. They rebel against conventional fashion and reject the idea of perfect beauty.

The Metaverse as the Latest Fashion System In the past couple of years since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, our personal and social values have transformed in addition to our daily lifestyle, which placed an emphasis on social distancing and which had a number of repercussions. Many companies implemented working from home, which affected our living and working conditions. Fashion had lost its social meaning and was now unimportant or less important since many of us saw our colleagues only from the chest up in online meetings. People did not need new clothes because they could not go out much during the lockdown. Shopping experience, which used to be one’s past time and a form of entertainment, had changed dramatically. We started buying fashion-related items online without trying, touching, or feeling the products, although clothing is one of the most tactile objects. Designers were showing their regular fashion shows online and livestreaming without having any audience in the room. The process and mechanism of fashion diffusion had changed. The digitization of fashion business has accelerated and intensified since the global pandemic, and as a result, it is constructing a new fashion system called the metaverse, which is a network of 3D virtual worlds focused on social connections. The term “metaverse” originated in the 1992 science fiction novel titled Snow Crash in which human beings existed as avatars in a virtual reality environment. “Meta” means beyond something and implies change, and “verse” means the universe. Our virtual presence is stronger than ever through avatars in the metaverse. We are moving one step further since the emergence of youth communities online. The metaverse, which is growing and grabbing the digital natives’ interests, is once again changing the landscape of the industry around the globe. Everyone expects it to be the next big thing and therefore we need to follow and understand its advanced technology and social impact. We are at the beginning stage of the metaverse, but it is moving extremely fast and at a rate that we can barely catch up with. It is no coincidence that people are paying more attention further to the metaverse as people are looking for more possibilities and opportunities in the virtual environment since the pandemic. Those who buy and sell products, collectibles, and assets in the metaverse, known as NFTs or non-fungible tokens, do not use conventional currencies, such as US dollars, UK pounds, and euros, but can only use so-called cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, which is a digital currency and an alternative payment method with encryption algorithms, and they are not tangible coins or

The Diversification and Changing Landscapes

129

paper money; it is a virtual accounting system that traces and tracks transaction records showing who has paid for what and when. A list of transactions is called a “blockchain,” which is the technology behind the cryptocurrency with a system of recording information in a way that makes changing the data or providing fake information extremely difficult or impossible. Therefore, the metaverse is a world of blockchain that is traceable by users. Cryptocurrency, unlike other conventional currencies known as fiat money, which is a government-issued currency, is decentralized, unregulated, or uncontrolled by the central authorities, banks, or governments and is not mediated by any third-party institutions. Thus, fashion-related items, such as clothing, footwear, or jewelry that we buy in the metaverse in a form of an NFT using cryptocurrency are not tangible objects but are virtual images that remain on our computers. You cannot touch or feel what you purchase in the metaverse, and they all exist in the virtual world, where products and objects are visible but not tangible or tactile. It is moving beyond the limitations of the physical world in which we live. One of the first NFT sales appeared in the art market as a form of investment. Instead of purchasing a real, tangible artwork, one could buy it in an NFT form. Christie’s, a British auction house known for the sale of art, is also participating in the NFT business and sold its first digital art as an NFT in March, 2021. Similarly, in the beginning of 2022, Julian Lennon, John Lennon’s son, started auctioning Beatles’ and his father’s memorabilia, such as John Lennon’s Gibson Les Paul guitars, his Afghan jacket from the Magical Mystery Tour, and the hooded cape worn for the movie Help. Buyers used cryptocurrencies for bidding and purchased them. These items were not real objects but photos/scanned images that stayed on the computers in the virtual world. It used to be difficult to commercialize the digital image reproduction prior to the metaverse with blockchain because of copyright issues. But the blockchain made it possible to trace records of purchases. The metaverse provides an opportunity for new types of products and shopping experiences, and at the same time, it contributes to new ecosystems as it does not use any paper money and does not produce any real objects or artifacts. It is definitely changing people’s values and concept of a status symbol in the digital era.

Fashion’s Participation in the Metaverse with NFTs The fashion industry followed the art market in the metaverse business, and they were quick in adopting the new model, targeting especially the digital natives who grew up in the digital age, often referred to as Millennials, the Z-generation, and Alpha Generation as opposed to digital immigrants who grew up in an age dominated by print and TVs. There is a clearly a generation gap between the two, and the intricate world of the metaverse is most attractive to the digital natives. Recently, more and more famous fashion companies and brands are

130Fashion-ology

participating in the metaverse and selling their products and merchandise as NFTs using cryptocurrency. When the internet was invented decades ago, luxury fashion brands were the last to enter the online environment since they were cautious about the mass appeal of the brand, which they wanted to avoid for their exclusivity status. But with the introduction of the metaverse, the European and American fashion companies were quick to make a move and view this new system and technological tool as the perfect opportunity to broaden their customers’ shopping experience and attract the digital community. Burberry, Coach, Bulgari, Cartier, Hublot, Louis Vuitton, and Prada have all joined the metaverse platform. NFTs provide an outlet for fashion brands and artists to expose and sell their work to a wider audience in a more accessible and democratic way. They are selling NFTs in their virtual fashion community through the metaverse. Prada started selling the Timecapsule collection as a monthly event in 2019, which appeared on their website for twenty-four hours, and in 2022, they launched their first NFT collection as a limited edition, along with a physical product that is a gender-neutral black and white shirt designed in collaboration with artist Cassius Hirst. They offered a free NFT with a serial number with their physical product. One hundred shirts and NFTs on the Ethereum blockchain were released. Those who previously bought Prada’s physical Timecapsule pieces were also given corresponding free NFTs, giving access to exclusive benefits and experiences. Owners of the gifted NFT could resell them on the secondary market since the scarcity of NFTs is very much valued in the metaverse as in the physical world. Similarly, Gucci is also among the growing list of luxury brands that combines NFTs with physical products and released a digital version of its archive-inspired Blondie bag on a gaming platform called Roblox. The company also put its clothing on avatars in Pudgy Penguins, World of Women, and Bored Ape Yacht Club. NFTs have also been gaining a firm foothold in the sneaker subculture, and the digital images of sneakers have been a rage among the sneaker enthusiasts. RTFKT (pronounced artifact), a digital fashion start-up brand, creates 3D virtual sneakers and collectibles as NFTs. Nike purchased RTFKT in December 2021, and they collaborated together and sold digital sneakers called Nike Dunk Genesis Cryptokicks for 1.88 Ethereum, which was worth about US$15,000. RTFKT also worked with Takashi Murakami, a Japanese artist, to create Clone X, which is a set of 20,000 3D anime-inspired profile picture art. Nike also created Nikeland in Roblox, which is an online metaverse accessed daily by millions of users. Adidas also offered the Into the Metaverse Collection with 30,000 NFTs in collaboration with Bored Ape Yacht Club, and those who bought an NFT also received real, tangible clothing. Paco Rabanne is using NFTs as a way to buy back its archives to give them a futuristic makeover as part of their NFT launch, the archives comprised of digital versions of Paco Rabanne’s twelve dresses

The Diversification and Changing Landscapes

131

such as a metallic mini-skirt suit from 1990 and a silk jumpsuit from 1997, which are sold via Selfridges. In addition, Dolce and Gabbana introduced a nine-piece NFT collection, and the real wearable pieces were auctioned at the same time. People spend money on digital clothes to dress their own avatars in popular video games, which bring people together psychologically closer in the digital world despite the physical distance. Those with the same technological level and knowledge create a community of their own and bind the users together to create a common bond. It is the ability to trade, shop, communicate, interact, and socialize in the virtual space. The metaverse is showing the audience and the market infinite opportunities and choices that technologies have in connecting people with other people and people with intangible objects and scanned images. The virtual space is creating a new set of fan base and customers in the metaverse. This also results in a technology hierarchy between the technologically advanced and savvy users and those who are not.

Digital Fashion Week and Metaverse Fashion Shows Fashion show events that used to take place in a particular location with the physical audience are also shifting to the metaverse. Having a biannual Fashion Week has been a way to spread fashion, and it was also an integral part of the fashion system that produces and reproduces the fashion culture. Designers used to spend huge amounts of money to rent a physical space, hire models and stage organizers, makeup artists, hair stylists, and so on. However, a fashion show in the metaverse is entirely a new platform with less financial burden. Designers and their staff do not have to travel to one of the four fashion capitals and load new clothes in suitcases. The Digital Fashion Week NY (DGFWNY) first started in October 2020 during the Brooklyn Fashion Week. As the audience is immersed in the metaverse, digital models show designers’ NFT digital clothes and walk through a digital world. Unlike a traditional fashion show, visitors can talk to designers and visit their online stores before the show begins. The goal of seeing and purchasing styles from the digital runway show is to build a collection for an avatar living in the metaverse. In addition, there was a metaverse fashion show in New York in March 2022 hosted by Decentraland and built on the Ethereum blockchain. Sixty fashion brands, including Tommy Hilfiger, D&G and Etro, Selfridges, Estee Lauder, and Bulova showcased their collections with more than 500 outfits in a four-day event. They used cryptocurrency called MANA through their digital wallets. Understandably, there are obvious future concerns that need further discussions about the authentication and certification of NFTs. Are they not fake? How do you know they are real? Who decides that they are authentic? In terms

132Fashion-ology

of tracing product histories and a product’s authenticity, customers can trace the origins of raw materials used to create their purchases, search for a specific item within a particular store, and view trading activities in the used market. ORIGYN, a Swiss company, authenticates luxury items such as watches with NFTs. Aura blockchain, which was made by Prada, LVMH, and Richemont also offer tracing methods and solutions. Tracing product histories and its authenticity becomes a crucial component in using and managing the metaverse since new types of lawsuits for NFTs are starting to emerge, and while NFTs are increasing in popularity, concerns and issues are also on the rise.

Conclusion The fashion system that used to be centralized in the four fashion capitals has been decentralized, destabilized, and diversified into different regions, directions, and phases. The second-tier fashion cities are actively organizing biannual fashion shows, and youth subcultures with unconventional styles emerged in the 1970s as an alternative fashion system, which continues to grow with new communities on social media. Fashion Weeks are becoming increasingly themebased, focusing on a particular topic, such as modesty, nonbinary identities, and sustainability. In the postmodern digital era, the latest fashion system in the metaverse is sweeping the industry as it offers a completely new business model in which clothing is not tangible. We are yet to see where fashion in the metaverse will take us and what and where the next fashion system will lead to.

Guide to Further Reading Bide, Bethan (2020), “London Leads the World: The Reinvention of London Fashion in the Aftermath of the Second World War,” Fashion Theory, 24:3, 349–69. DOI: 10.1080/1362704X.2020.1732015. Cunningham, Bill (2019), On the Street: Five Decades of Iconic Photography, New York: Clarkson Potter. Jin, Yating (2022), “A Mechanism of the Chinese Fashion System,” Fashion Theory, 26:5, 595–621. DOI: 10.1080/1362704X.2020.1736813. Reinach, Simona Segre (2011), “National Identities and International Recognition,” Fashion Theory, 15:2, 267–72. DOI: 10.2752/175174111X12954359478889. Skov, Lise (2011), “Dreams of Small Nations in a Polycentric Fashion World,” Fashion Theory, 15:2, 137–56. DOI: 10.2752/175174111X12954359478609. Teunissen, José (2011), “Deconstructing Belgian and Dutch Fashion Dreams: From Global Trends to Local Crafts,” Fashion Theory, 15:2, 157–76. DOI: 10.2752/175174 111X12954359478645. Wubs, Ben, Mariangela Lavanga, and Alice Janssens (2020), “Letter from the Editors: The Past and Present of Fashion Cities,” Fashion Theory, 24:3, 319–24. DOI: 10.1080/1362704X.2020.1732012.

7 ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IN FASHION

Since the start of a dialogue on climate change, a discussion on sustainability is one of the most important trends in the twenty-first century, which has an enormous influence on people’s consumption habits and levels of awareness on environmental and social ecologies that the world is confronting today. The term “sustainability” is defined as the quality of being able to continue over a period of time and the quality of causing little or no damage to the environment (Cambridge Dictionary 2022). Researchers and industry professionals in a variety of fields, disciplines, and occupations provide their respective approaches and perspectives to the issues of sustainability. The fashion and textile industries have been scrutinized by activists and attentive consumers for global supply chains, product authenticity, and workers’ labor conditions among many others. The industries are obliged to investigate human impacts on the environment and vice versa. Sustainability has also become a social movement that mobilizes those who are passionate about protecting the future of the planet and human society. Research studies show that ecological and social sustainabilities are the utmost concerns and interests of the Millennials, Z Generation, and Alpha Generation (O’Brien, Selboe, and Hayward 2018), and therefore, social and ecological responsibilities are on the corporate agenda of many fashion- and textile-related brands and retailers. This chapter first explains the United Nations (UN) Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) released in 2015, which started an active international conversation on the topic. Governments around the world are implementing laws and regulations for the fashion industry to preserve the future of the earth, protect human rights, and generate profits in ethical ways. It also sheds light on the problems of sustainability in the fashion and textile industries from two dimensions, ecological and social, both of which are also

134Fashion-ology

directly linked to the economic dimension. The fashion industry is now placed under the spotlight as a significant contributor to global environmental and social issues of the twenty-first century, and therefore, we are urged to investigate the environmental impacts of all stages of a product’s life-cycle as much as possible (Kozlowski, Bardecki, and Searcy 2012).

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) The topic on environmental and social sustainability has always been on the United Nation’s agenda. They organized their first conference on human environmental issues as early as 1972 and proposed the importance of the protection and improvement of the human ecological environment and the prevention of pollution. The natural resources of the earth, such as the air, water, land, flora, and fauna, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning and management as appropriate, according to the UN conference report on the human environment (1972). The Brundtland Commission was formed in 1983 as a subcommittee of the UN, and in 1987, a 300-page UN Brundtland report titled “Our Common Future” was released pointing out the world’s common environmental concerns, strategic imperatives, the role of international economy in sustainable development, and the urban challenge in developing countries, among many others. The commission was then replaced by The Center for Our Common Future in 1988. In addition, in 2000, the UN launched the Eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set to be achieved by 2015, and one of the goals, Goal 7 as below, was to “promote environmental sustainability”(UN 2000): 1. Eliminate extreme poverty and hunger 2. Achieve global primary education 3. Empower women and promote gender equality 4. Reduce child mortality 5. Promote maternal health 6. Fight malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases 7. Promote environmental sustainability 8. Develop a universal partnership for development These goals were reviewed to explore and evaluate what they had achieved and had not achieved by 2015. This led to the most recent Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which builds on the above eight goals and was launched to strengthen universal peace in larger

Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion

135

freedom and eradicate poverty in all its forms and dimensions, and in addition, all countries and relevant stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership are expected to implement this plan (UN 2015). The Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (Table 7.1) were adopted in 2015 by all the UN member states and developed/developing countries, and contain 169 targets, which indicate the scale and magnitude of this new universal agenda, and their ultimate goals are to realize the human rights for all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls around the world, and they integrate the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social, and environmental (UN 2015). It is an international agenda implemented universally to pursue and achieve the global sustainability goals. This agenda came into effect on January 1, 2016. Each country works at the national, regional, and sub-regional levels. All member states are encouraged to achieve these goals by 2030. Each country faces specific challenges in its pursuit of sustainable development. The UN report indicates that the most vulnerable countries are African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, and small island developing states in addition to countries in situations of conflict and post-conflict countries (UN 2015: 7). As explained later in this chapter, a number of European countries and the United States are now taking action and implementing policies and regulations for sustainability in the fashion and textile industries.

Environmental Performance Index (EPI) by Yale University Countries are working to raise their sustainability index along with the local and regional fashion and textile industries. The Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy in collaboration with the Center for International Earth Science Information Network and the Earth Institute at Columbia University provide statistical data on the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which is a key indicator of a country’s ecosystem vitality and environmental health. They research 180 countries, score and rank them on their environmental performance, and calculate the changes in the scores over the previous decade (epi.yale.edu). Each country is assessed using thirty-two indicators that fall under eleven issues, which include air quality, sanitation and drinking water, heavy metals, waste management, biodiversity and habitat, ecosystem services, fisheries, climate change pollution emissions, agriculture, and water resources. A list of the top thirty countries with the highest EPI scores allows us to assess the state of sustainability around the world (Table 7.2). Denmark ranked number 1 with the highest score of 77.90, followed by the UK with 77.70. The top ten countries are dominated by EU countries and the UK. The United States ranked number 43 with an EPI score of 51.10 followed by

136Fashion-ology

Table 7.1 

The United Nations Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Item

Description

1

No Poverty

End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

2

No Hunger

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.

3

Good Health and Wellbeing

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

4

Quality Education

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong-learning opportunities for all.

5

Gender Equality

Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

6

Clear Water and Sanitation

Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

7

Affordable and Clean Energy

Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.

8

Decent Work and Economic Growth

Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.

9

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.

10

Reduced Inequalities

Reduce inequality within and among countries.

11

Sustainable Cities and Communities

Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

12

Responsible Consumption and Production

Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

13

Climate Action

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

14

Life below Water

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.

15

Life on Land

Protect, restore, and promote use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

16

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

17

Partnerships for the Goals

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.

Source: www.sdgs.un.org/goals.

Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion

137

Canada with a score of 49. Among the Asian countries, Japan ranked 23 with a score of 57.20 followed by Singapore ranked at 44 and South Korea at 63. The bottom five countries were Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Myanmar, and India, which was at the very bottom of the list with a score of 18.9 (Wolf et al. 2022). The above EPI scores can be juxtaposed with the countries that produce clothing and textile in large quantities (Table 7.3). The top five clothing exporters are China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, and Indonesia, three of which are ranked at the bottom of the list with China ranked at 160 with a score of 28.4 and Indonesia ranked 164th with a score of 28.2 (epi.yale.edu).

UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion The fashion and textile industries are the most polluting industries, which harm and destroy natural ecology, and they are also obliged to tackle human rights issues of their employees and workers. They are responsible for most of the items in the UN SDGs in Table 7.1. The industries around the world directly contribute to and are responsible for SDG Goals (1, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 13). For example, like any other manufacturing sector, clothing is produced by using energy and polluting nature, air, water, and land, which are relevant to SDG Goals 6, 14, and 15, and garment factories are often criticized for taking advantage of low-income countries and hiring women, girls, and children at low wages, which relate to SDG Goals 1, 2, and 5. The United Nations Alliance for Sustainable Fashion was established as an initiative of the United Nations agencies and allied organizations to contribute to the SDGs through collaborative efforts and activities in the fashion sector, such as clothing, leather, footwear, and other items made from textile and related materials (unfashionalliance.org). To ensure that the fashion value chain contributes to the achievement of the SDGs targets, the Alliance oversees the raw material production; the manufacturing of garments, accessories, and footwear; their distribution; consumption; and disposal. In addition, they also monitor workers’ labor environment and wages. Through the Alliance, the UN commits to changing the course of the industry, reducing its negative environmental and social impacts (www.unfash​iona​llia​nce.org). The Alliance collaborates with other relevant UN organizations and agencies, including the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Sustainable Development (Sdgs. un.org), and the Division of Sustainable Development Goals in the United Nationals Department Economic and Social Affairs (UNESA). Ethical Fashion Initiative (EFI), which was founded in 2009, oversees the abovementioned UN Alliance and works at the intersection of international development, the creative industries, and the fashion and lifestyle sector, offering sustainability services, products, and development projects. As indicated in their organizational mission, their goal is to reduce poverty, ensure sustainable development,

138Fashion-ology

Table 7.2 

Top Thirty Environmental Performance Index 2022 (EPI) Rank

Country

EPI Score

1

Denmark

77.90

2

United Kingdom

77.70

3

Finland

76.50

4

Malta

75.20

5

Sweden

72.70

6

Luxembourg

72.30

7

Slovenia

67.30

8

Austria

66.70

9

Switzerland

65.90

10

Iceland

62.80

11

The Netherlands

62.60

12

France

62.50

13

Germany

62.40

14

Estonia

61.40

15

Latvia

61.10

16

Croatia

60.20

17

Australia

60.10

18

Slovakia

60.00

19

Czech Republic

59.90

20

Norway

59.30

21

Belgium

58.20

22

Cyprus

58.00

23

Italy

57.70

24

Ireland

57.40

25

Japan

57.20

26

New Zealand

56.70

27

Spain

56.60

28

Bahamas

56.20

28

Greece

56.20

29

Rumania

56.00

30

Lithuania

55.90

Source: Yale University (www.epi.yale.edu).

Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion

139

Table 7.3 

Top Ten Apparel Exporting Countries to the United States, and Their EPI Ranks and Scores Country

Export Volume in US Million $

Export Volume in Quantity in Millions

Average Monthly Wage 2019 (US$)

Environmental Performance Index Rank (EPI Score)

1

China

1,297.96

794.96

217

160 (28.4)

2

Vietnam

1,072.66

348.42

151

178 (20.1)

3

Bangladesh

519.37

198.66

63

177 (23.1)

4

India

287.95

94.93

168

180 (18.9)

5

Indonesia

275.78

77.40

181

164 (28.2)

6

Cambodia

229.61

91.14

176

154 (30.1)

7

Mexico

178.31

54.13

127

73 (45.5)

8

Honduras

138.31

46.96

297

121 (36.5)

9

Pakistan

146.77

68.62

111

176 (24.6)

10

El Salvador

133.72

39.66

299

95 (40.8)

Source: OTEXA and Yale Center; apparelresources.com; epi.yale.edu

and promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law across the world (ethicalfashioninitiative.org).

Ecological Sustainability With the general public’s heightened awareness on sustainability, consumers are constantly looking for fashion- and textile-related products that are ecologically sustainable, and socially ethical, and that are kind to themselves and the planet. Some of the common fibers and textiles used in clothing production are synthetic fibers, such as polyester and nylon, and natural fibers, such as cotton, linen, and wool. It is important in this day and age to question where and how our clothes are made, how they get to us, and what happens when we are done with them (Bédat 2021) and trace as far back as the origin of fiber and yarn productions. Up to 20 percent of industrial water pollution is from textile dyeing and treatment, according to the World Bank (2019). Today’s industry practitioners, such as designers, marketers, and retailers, should not simply be thinking about the styles, shapes, and colors of clothes but also need to be aware of the supply chain and how and where the textiles and fabrics that they use and sell are manufactured. They must be knowledgeable about textiles just like textile and fabric designers/artists. This is also another example of a boundary collapse discussed in the previous chapters. Similarly, the spread of fast fashion that is produced in abundance at cheap prices led consumers to overspend on clothes

140Fashion-ology

and purchase more than necessary, and clothes are discarded at the end of each season. Brands and companies today are coming up with various strategies and solutions to make the industry more ecologically sustainable.

Eco-Fashion: Responsible Clothing and Textile Production and Reuse There is much pressure on corporate social responsibility and sustainability that no fashion brand or company can ignore if they want to survive in the industry. The fashion industry has started to take the issues seriously and is taking actions to make its products more sustainable and environmentally friendly in response to the consumers’ demand. They are in pursuit of eco-fashion, which is also called green fashion or circular fashion. Eco-fashion is defined as “identifying the general environmental performance of a product within a product group based on its whole life-cycle in order to contribute to improvements in key environmental measures and to support sustainable consumption patterns” by the International Standards Organization (ISO). What is considered eco-fashion or not is still uncertain, and the industry is working to standardize a labeling system to identify garments that meet official criteria as environmentally friendly. The production of synthetic fabrics is an energy-intensive process that consumes large amounts of oil and releases toxic emissions; polyester and nylon manufacturing releases toxic chemical gas into the air. In addition, natural fiber production is just as harmful and damaging as that of synthetic fibers. Cotton, which is one of the most popular and widely used fibers, has a significant negative impact on the natural environment. About 50 percent of the fiber used in the textile industry is cotton. According to the USDA, the United States is the largest exporter of cotton in the world, and it accounts for a quarter of all the pesticides used in the country. Much of the cotton produced in the United States is exported to China and other developing countries with low-labor costs, where the material is milled, woven into fabrics, cut, and assembled according to the industry’s specifications. The process of growing, harvesting, and producing cotton negatively impacts the earth as it consumes a lot of water. Cotton also requires a lot of insecticides, which damage the ecological environment. In contrast, organic cotton is more sustainable socially and environmentally since it does not use any pesticides but is expensive to grow.

Natural Wastes and Next-Gen Bio-Based Alternative Material Innovations One possible approach and solution for eco-fashion is the use of sustainably grown, organic fiber crops, such as cotton, hemp, and bamboo, which require less pesticides and other harmful chemicals. Organic cotton is grown in at

Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion

141

least twelve countries. Figures provided by the Organic Trade Association 2004 Manufacturer Survey show that the sale of organic cotton fiber grew by an estimated 22.7 percent over the previous year, which indicates an increase in the use of organic cotton in the industry, and sales of organic cotton for women’s clothing grew by 33 percent (2004). However, organic cotton still represents only 0.03 percent of worldwide cotton production. This figure may grow as retailers begin to expand their selections of organic cotton apparel. Fast fashion companies, which are often accused of neglecting and dismissing sustainable production, are forced to take action in response to the consumers’ demand. In 2019, Inditex, which owns Zara, decided to introduce a series of sustainability initiatives to make their cotton, linen, and polyester production 100 percent sustainable by 2025. Similarly, high-quality yarns can be created from recycled plastic bottles. Labels are removed, bottles are washed and crushed into tiny pieces of flakes, and made into yarns, which can be woven into recycled polyester fabric. For example, Nike’s Flyknit sneakers, whose upper part is made out of woven and knitted yarns, are made from recycled plastic bottles. Six to seven plastic bottles are used to make one sneaker. A Danish textile company, TEXSTYLE, has come up with a new technology that produces wool and velvet from recycled plastic bottles that look and feel like real wool and velvet. A new term “Next-gen Materials” refers to high-performance sustainable alternatives that replace animal-based materials and are produced in nature friendly ways since companies increasingly want to rely less on animals. Many companies are now changing their production methods and technologies and collaborating with those that produce innovative next-gen materials. Companies are experimenting sustainable and eco-friendly leather production through the use of plants and vegetables whose process is different from vegan leather production, which uses petroleum vinyl chloride (PVC) and relies on harmful chemicals during the manufacturing process. As a vegan leather alternative, Adriano di Marti, a company based in Mexico, used cactus-based leather called Desserto. Gucci also unveiled Demetra, a primarily bio-based leather alternative that was used to make three types of Gucci sneakers, and the brand plans to expand its use further. In a vegan-alternative shoe capsule collection released last September, Reformation, a brand with a cult following, launched cereal leather, which is known as bio-preferred material, primarily made of natural materials like cereals and grains; it also applies its RefScale methodology to track how much carbon dioxide and water are used in production and to measure the environmental impact of every piece of cloth they sell in their store, and discloses the results to the customers. Other innovative biomaterials include fish skin, rose stems, pineapple leaves, cork, apple/orange/potato peels, other fruit waste, such as seeds, skin, and stalks of grapes that are discarded during wine production, and labgrown microorganisms. H&M introduced clothes made out of orange peels

142Fashion-ology

and pineapple leaves as part of the Conscious Exclusive Line, and they are collaborating with other brands to make use of organic waste materials. Pinatex makes a vegan leather alternative out of pineapple leaves that are usually thrown away. A similar move is taking place to replace other animal-based materials, including silk, wool, fur, and down. Salvatore Ferragamo launched a collection with Orange Fiber, a silk alternative made from orange peels, in 2017.

Secondhand, Used Clothing Markets According to a McKinsey report (2022), the world now consumes in excess of a hundred billion pieces of clothing a year, and as a whole, the industry is responsible for ninety-two million tons of waste dumped in landfills every year, and 35 percent of microplastic pollution comes from washing synthetic textiles, much of which is produced by fast fashion brands. New York City residents throw away about 200,000 tons of clothing and other related items every year. The environmental and ethical issues surrounding overproduction of clothing have been discussed and debated among researchers and environmental activists and have escalated in recent years. Excessive clothing production as well as consumption has been blamed on fast fashion, which used to pay attention to costs but little attention to their supply chain and which resulted in making cheap and disposable clothing that caused much textile waste and overflowing landfills. Used clothing from the United States is mostly sold to developing and underdeveloped nations. One of the most well-known secondhand clothing markets is found in Pepe, Haiti. People in developed nations believe that donating used clothing to low-income countries, such as Haiti and Kenya, is for a good cause. Used clothing and textile donations from the United States were part of the international aid program for Haiti, which was initiated and spearheaded by the Kennedy administration in the 1960s. This seemingly philanthropic act could be hurting the local dressmaking and tailoring businesses, which are an important part of the country’s economy, but with a growing trend on recycled clothing, Haiti is now exporting the recycled clothes back to the United States (Lewis and Pringle 2015). Secondhand and used clothing is becoming a lucrative business in Europe and the United States as the younger generation prefers to buy and wear used clothing rather than brand new clothes. It is estimated to become an $80 billion business by 2029 since flea markets and thrift stores are moving to the online platform, which can reach the worldwide audience. Used clothing purchases satisfy the younger generation’s philosophy, and it makes them feel that they are directly contributing to sustainability and making the world greener. Some luxury brands, such as Burberry and Gucci, are collaborating with consignment stores to buy back their secondhand items in good condition and resell them.

Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion

143

Many designers are using their own deadstock and old samples, upcycling them, and creating a new collection. Maison Margiela by Marc Jacobs started a label called RECICLA, which is a sustainably focused line and pays homage to Margiela’s former brand called REPLICA, which Jacobs created by scouring through secondhand and vintage clothes around the world and made their replicas. Similarly, Miu Miu has collected vintage clothes from the 1930s to the 1980s and upcycled them with distinct Miu Miu elements, such as ribbons, braids, and ornaments. They also collaborated with classic Levi’s denim jeans, shorts, and jackets, which were upcycled with beads and studs to give them a fresh look. These items particularly interest the Z Generation and Alpha Generation’s preferences for used, preowned clothing. New Standard Institute was launched as an online database for designers and brands that want to become more sustainable. These issues have moved beyond the concerns of the consumers, designers, and industries and are now reaching the level of the governments that plan to create regulations for the industry.

Social Sustainability In the book Unraveled: The Life and Death of a Garment (2021), Maxine Bédat looks at the dark side of the fashion industry that is toxic and damaging to the environment and the workers. There is a factory in Guangdong, China, that specializes in acid-washing and sanding denim jeans, and the effect is very much in trend and popular among the denim enthusiasts. Denim jeans is one of the most popular and widely worn items of clothing, but the investigation of the denim supply chain shows that they are not only ecologically unsustainable but also socially unethical and dangerous to the workers’ health. It is not only the industry’s impact on the natural and ecological environment but also the people involved in the production of textiles and clothing that we need to be cognizant of. We are obliged to pay attention to another dimension of sustainability, which is social. These factors relate to many of the items listed in the seventeen UN SDGs (Table 7.1). Crewe raises the following thoughtprovoking and captivating questions: We all wear clothes, but how often do we reflect on who makes our clothes, where and under what conditions? Why do we buy and wear the clothes we do and how often do we think about where the value lies in a garment? Why do the phrases “Made in Italy” and “Made in China” have such different connotations? How can a child in Cambodia working in a denim factory have any geographical connection to a Prada store on Bond Street? (2008: 25) These questions help raise our awareness on the current social issues in the fashion and textile industries, which used to be neglected and dismissed for a

144Fashion-ology

long time. Do we think enough about where our clothes travel around the world, through fields and factories, oceans and air, into shops, homes, wardrobes, onto bodies? (Crewe 2008: 26). There is a human cost to what we wear. The global garment supply chain is complex and hidden, so it needs to be more transparent. The World Bank warns that as many as 150 million people could fall back into extreme poverty by the end of 2022 due to the pandemic.

Human Exploitation and Exposure to Physical Danger Forty percent of the clothes sold in the United States in 1997 were made in the Unites States, but in 2022, it is only about 3 percent. According to WBUR, a Boston’s NPR (national public radio) news station (wbur.org), it is estimated that about 97 percent of apparel sold in the United States is manufactured outside the United States, according to the Apparel and Footwear Association. Laws and policies are not properly enforced for the domestic and overseas garment workers, and their health is also affected because of poor working environment wherein they are surrounded by toxic materials and chemicals. Most of the so-called “all-American brands” are not exactly made in the United States but are made in developing countries where labor costs are much cheaper than that in the United States. For instance, brands such as New Balance, Chuck Taylor All Star, Ray-Ban, Harley Davison, L. L. Bean, and Levi Strauss have only a handful of their styles made from the beginning to the end in the United States. The top three countries that produce American clothes are China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh, and as indicated in Table 7.3, the average monthly wage for a worker is far below what a worker in a developed country earns, but European and American companies do not have a control over the overseas production, labor conditions, and workers’ wages since they are not owned by them. The overseas factories are owned and managed by the local people and companies. It is estimated that the fast fashion industry employs about seventy-five million factory workers worldwide, and less than 2 percent of them can actually make a living wage. This leads to workers living below the poverty line, and they are considered as “slave labor” with hardly any days off. Garment workers’ exploitation is a global human rights problem as well as a diplomatic problem that transcends national boundaries. Workers are exploited and taken advantage of to generate massive profits for the company owners and shareholders in capitalist countries. According to the Garment Worker Center (garmentworkercenter.org), which works to ensure garment workers’ wages and overtime pay, and humane working conditions, the situations for the garment factory workers in the United States are no better than those overseas. The garment industry in Los Angeles is the second largest manufacturing sector, with about 45,000 workers, mostly

Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion

145

female Latina and Chinese women. Eighty-five percent of them earn less than the minimum wage or are paid a piece rate between two and six cents a piece. They work over sixty hours a week with a take-home wage of about 300 dollars a week. Their working condition is deplorable, dirty, unsafe, and poorly ventilated, which affects their physical and mental conditions as well. Furthermore, fast fashion, which is based on the rapid clothing production, sacrifices ethical issues and human rights issues. Having four collections a year was a standard seasonal cycle in the fashion retail industry, but the collection cycle has become so fast and competitive that a company like H&M has a new business model with a series of new collections almost every week. They offer cheap clothes, which allow consumers to purchase them in large quantities; they do not need to last long and are disposable. The companies compromise labor practices in order to create a high volume of clothing at a low cost, not taking into consideration the workers’ work environment.

Unethical Labor Conditions Unethical, inhumane, and dangerous labor conditions came to light globally when the Rama Plaza Factory in Bangladesh, which housed a number of garment factories, collapsed in 2013, despite prior warnings about the structural damages and cracks in the walls. A picture of the collapse on the front cover of the New York Times went viral on the internet. This was the deadliest garment industry accident in modern history with over a thousand workers killed and two thousand and five hundred people injured. Safeguards on the building had expired, and engineers had even recommended that the building should be condemned, but these prior warnings were ignored, and the workers were still ordered to come in. This incident brought to surface the problems of garment factories around the world, many of which seriously violate human rights.

The Impact of “The True Cost” Documentary This incident in Bangladesh motivated Andrew Morgan, an American film maker, to create a documentary about the behind-the-scenes garment industry called The True Cost (2015). It further encouraged other activists and filmmakers to uncover what really is happening behind the doors in the factories, including a documentary, Luxury: Behind the Mirror of High-end Fashion (2019), which painstakingly traced the supply chain of luxury leather bags and fur coats with a hidden camera. Furthermore, a number of research-based publications and investigative reports were published, and they openly exposed the unethical and inhumane conditions of garment factory workers: “To Die For: Is Fashion Wearing Out the World?” (2011) by Lucy Siegel; “Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion” (2013) by Elizabeth Cline; “Fashionpolis” (2020) by

146Fashion-ology

Dana Thomas; and “Clothing Poverty: The Hidden World of Fast Fashion and Secondhand Clothing” (2020). It is clear that a more structural industry and systemic change is necessary, and more concrete regulations must be put in place. The Bangladesh Fire and Safety Accord, which was launched after the Rana Plaza factory collapse, is believed to be the first legally binding agreement between workers, factory managers, and apparel companies and affects the safety of over one million workers in Bangladesh garment factories. This should be followed and replicated by other factories and fashion companies.

The Uyghur Muslim Community in China The Western media has been reporting on the oppression, exploitation, and forced labor of the Uyghurs in China who are the country’s largest Muslim ethnic minority found in the Xinjiang region of China although the Chinese government vehemently denies it. About a million of them have been detained and are in forced labor in factories. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, at least eighty thousand Uyghurs were transferred out of Xinjiang to factories throughout China from 2017 to 2019, where they were put to work, were unable to leave the place, and were placed under surveillance. In July 2022, a coalition of international organizations called End Uyghur Forced Labor published a list of fashion brands that had not taken adequate steps to ensure their supply chains were not linked to forced labor from Xinjiang. This has a significant impact and effect on the fashion industry since about 85 percent of China’s cotton, which is widely and globally exported, comes from Xinjiang. Thus, it is imperative that every fashion company and brand, big or small, takes responsibility for and inspects their production, is conscious of their supply chain, and contributes to changing the industry that is deeply rooted in exploitation and violation of human rights. This has become an important political and international relations issue between China and other industrialized countries that were unknowingly importing the products made by the Chinese factories that employ the Uyghurs. The French government has opened an investigation into four Chinese companies over crimes against humanity (Paton 2021), and Uniqlo had a shipment of men’s shorts blocked by the United States because of suspected violations of a ban on Xinjiang cotton. These workers have little or no social, political, and financial protections. The spread of the Covid-19 pandemic made the situation of the fashion and textile industries worse as the brands had to demand lower production costs for their survival. Suppliers have been asked to make their prices an average of 12 percent cheaper than the previous years, according to research by the Center for Global Workers’ Rights (CGWR) at Penn State University. In a survey of seventy-five factories in fifteen countries, suppliers said they had to wait an

Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion

147

average of seventy-seven days for payment, compared to forty-three days before the pandemic, raising fears of further factory closures in an industry employing sixty million people worldwide.

Sustainability Certification Standards for Clothing and Textiles Productions Today’s conscientious consumers check everything about a brand and company that they buy their goods from: where and how a product is made, by whom, and in what working condition the workers are in. It is about earning consumers’ trust by releasing as much information as possible. As the demand for products that are socially and environmentally friendly increases, companies realize that there needs to be a certification standard for their sustainability performance. Certification is an independent auditor inspecting a brand’s supply chain to ensure compliance with Fairtrade Standards. Just as the certification for NFT products in the metaverse is becoming crucial, the same also applies to products that claim to be sustainably manufactured. There is a list of organizations and companies headquartered in different parts of the world that issue sustainability certifications (Table 7.4). Some of the most trusted and reliable certifications that are well recognized in the fashion and textile industries include B-Corp Certification and Bluesign Certification. B Corp or Corporation is a private certification of for-profit companies in regards to their social and environmental performance. It is a global nonprofit organization with offices in the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. As of July 2022, there are over five thousand certified B Corporations across 156 industries including apparel and textile, in 83 countries. A certified B Corp is certified by B Lab, which is a non-profit company that measures a company’s social and environmental performance against the standards in the online B Impact Assessment. B Lab’s goal is to build “a global community of Certified B Corporations that meet the highest standards of verified, overall social and environmental performance, public transparency and legal accountability” (bcorporation.net). The companies and brands that have passed B Lab’s certification process are officially acknowledged as a Certified B Corp. There are five conditions in the Certified B Corporation evaluation: accountability, transparency, performance, availability, and cost (www.bcorp). As indicated in their certification standards, Certified B Corp must publish and make public a report of their social and environmental performance; this report is assessed by a neutral, third-party standard. Corporations must attain a minimum score on the B Impact Assessment test and get recertified every two years. Some of the B Corp Certified brands include Athleta, Eileen Fisher, Patagonia, Karen Kane, Tentree, The Good Tee and Allbirds. Chloé was the first high-fashion brand to receive the

148Fashion-ology

Table 7.4 

Major Clothing and Textile Certification Organizations

Since

Name of Organization

Certification Type

Headquarters

2020

Climate Beneficial Fiber Pool

Environmental

United States

2017

Regenerative Organic Certified

Organic

Colombia

2016

Global Organic Textile Standard

Organic

Serbia

2014

Organic Cotton Accelerator

Organic

United States

2013

Organic Content Standard

Organic

n/a

2013

Canopy

Environmental

United States

2012

Cradle to Cradle

Environmental

United States; The Netherlands

2011

Sustainable Apparel Coalition

Holistic

United States

2008

Global Recycle Standard

Recycling

UK

2006

B Lab

Holistic

United States

2005

Better Cotton Initiative

Environmental

Switzerland; UK

2005

Leather Working Group

Environmental

UK

2005

Cotton Made in Africa

Human rights

Germany

2004

World Fair Trade Organization

Fair trade

The Netherlands

2004

Fairtrade International

Fair trade

Germany

2003

FLOCERT

Fair trade

Germany

2002

International Fairtrade

Fair trade

Germany

2001

Ethical Clothing Australia

Human rights

Australia

2000

Bluesign

Environmental

Switzerland

2000

Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP)

Human rights

United States

1998

Fair Trade USA

Fair trade

United States

1998

Ethical Trading Initiative

Human rights

UK

1997

SA8000

Environmental

Switzerland

1997

Fairtrade International

Fair trade

Germany

1997

Social Accountability International

Human rights

United States

1994

Forest Stewardship Council

Environmental

Mexico

1993

Forest Stewardship Council

Environmental

Germany

1992

OEKO-TEX

Environmental

Switzerland

1992

USDA Organic

Organic

United States

1991

ECOCERT

Environmental

France

1989

The Nordic Swan Ecolabel

Environmental

Sweden

1989

World Fair Trade Organization

Fair trade

The Netherlands

1980

PETA

Animal rights

United States

Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion

149

Table 7.4 (continued) Since

Name of Organization

Certification Type

Headquarters

1969

Solidaridad

Holistic

Brazil

1964

Woolmark

Environmental

Australia

1946

Soil Association

Environmental

UK

1944

NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) International

Holistic

United States

Source: Compiled from various sources and websites

certification, Vestiair Collective was the first secondhand store to get the B Corp certification, and Reda was the first Italian brand to get the certification. In response to the demand for environmentally friendly textile products, Bluesign Technologies, a company based in Switzerland, issues the Bluesign certification, which was first launched in 2000, and it is a standard used throughout the world. They check the health and environmental impacts of the products. Companies need to release all the relevant information and provide complete transparency and traceability of their products (bluesign.com). They also inspect the entire production chain, from the use of raw materials to the end products. The Bluesign Certification means that products are free of harmful substances, the environment is ensured, they generate lower air and water emissions, the production process is transparent, and their finished products are safe. Some of the Bluesign-certified brands include Adidas, Patagonia, Eddie Bauer, Kathmandu Holdings, Lululemon, and so on. They also issue a list of certified manufacturers, such as Bontex International in South Korea, Asahi Kasei Corp in Japan, Dobert Textile Group in Spain, and ISKO in Turkey, among many others. In addition, a company’s transparency is the focus of the certification standard. Fashion Revolution is a nonprofit organization that issues a transparency index every year. This is also one of the ways to earn consumers’ trust and brand loyalty. A term “radical transparency” has been used in many industries to gauge an organization’s openness, honesty, public exposure, and traceability of their products and activities. Similarly, Dutch Awearness, a company that provides 100 percent recyclable uniforms and corporate wear for businesses, adopts Circular Content Management System, which uses barcodes to ensure full traceability of their products and is available for other producers to use. With growing interests and concerns for ecological and social sustainability, companies are now implementing certification standards and transparency indices to assess and evaluate the level of sustainability. As indicated in Table 7.4, a number of certification companies have been on the increase since the late 1990s. It will also become necessary to assess the reliability and validity of these certification companies as well.

150Fashion-ology

Governments’ Regulations on Sustainability In response to the consumers’ and the industries’ concerns for ecological and social sustainability, governments, primarily in Europe, the UK, and the United States, are taking actions to regulate and legalize sustainability in clothing and textile production. As seen in the Sustainability Performance Index released by Yale University, European countries and the UK scored high in the index (Table 7.1). Various governments are introducing new policies and laws to control the production methods and processes to protect the environment and human rights. In 2018, the British government set forth a twenty-five-year plan called “Our Waste, Out Resources: A Strategy for England,” which included textile production. Furthermore, in February 2019, the Sustainability Inspection Committee published a report on “Fixing Fashion: Clothing Consumption and Sustainability.” They made proposals on how the natural environment can be preserved and how human rights are protected. As a response, the British government issued a “Government Response” to the report, which mentioned the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan coordinated in 2013 between the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) in and some of the major British fashion retailers, such as Next, Primark, and Marks and Spencer. The British Fashion Council has also published a report titled “Positive Fashion.” The government proposed the launch of a voluntary agreement, Textiles 2030, which builds on the success of the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan coordinated by WRAP with Marks and Spencer, Asos, and Next. Similarly, France is taking action and has passed a law that prohibits getting rid of unsold clothes. Companies are obliged to either recycle them back to fibers and reweave them as recycled fabrics, or donate them to charitable organizations for resale. Other European nations are expected to follow suit. The law came into effect on January 1, 2022. This includes the ban on designer clothes and luxury goods companies destroying unsold or returned items under a wide-ranging anti-waste law passed by parliament. The groundbreaking law, which the French government claims is a world first, also covers electrical items, hygiene products, and cosmetics, which must now be reused, redistributed, or recycled. The Scottish government followed suit, and in March 2022, Scottish Circular Economy Minister Lorna Slater announced proposals for a ban on the destruction of unsold, durable goods. The ban is to be put forward as part of a consultation on a new Circular Economy Bill published in May 2022. Similarly, the Scandinavian countries have been active in implementing the textile-related sustainability policies and are leading the world in regulating

Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion

151

sustainability. They are a step or two ahead in the global climate effort competition. In 2015, the Danish government launched an action plan for sustainable fashion and textiles and urged the Danish fashion industry to make sustainability their first priority. Many Danish designers work on innovative Nextgen materials and textiles. In addition, Denmark and Bangladesh signed an agreement on Sustainability and Green Framework Engagement to jointly tackle global climate change by reinforcing their partnership in technology and energy sectors. It is a new research project between Denmark, which ranked number one and Bangladesh, which is placed second to the last in the EPI. The United States is also catching up with the European nations in the implementation of laws and policies on fashion and textile sustainability. In January 2022, the Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act (or Fashion Act) in New York State was unveiled: a bill, if passed, would make New York the first state in the country to pass legislation that will effectively hold the biggest brands in fashion to account for their role in climate change (nysenate.gov). New York State is supported and backed by a powerful coalition of nonprofit organizations that focus on fashion and sustainability, including the New Standard Institute, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, as well as the designer Stella McCartney. The law will apply to global apparel and footwear companies based in New York State, with more than $100 million in revenues (Friedman 2022). The law requires companies to disclose at least 50 percent of their supply chain, starting with the farms where the raw materials originate through factories and shipping. They are also required to show where in that chain they have the greatest social and environmental impact when it comes to fair wages, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, water, and chemical management, and make concrete plans to reduce those numbers (nysenate.gov). More recently, in July 2022, the FABRIC (Fashioning Accountability and Building Real Institutional Change) Act was authored by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Representative Caroline Maloney of New York, who are working to pass the act, which introduces new workplace protections and manufacturing incentives to solidify the United States as the global leader in ethical fashion and textile productions. By improving the garment workers’ labor conditions, they are attempting to bring back the production to the United States, which will contribute to the national employment (thefabricact.org). The Act contains five pillars, such as the enforcement of minimum wage standards, increase accountability on brands and retailers to combat workplace violations, increase transparency, incentivize reshoring with tax credits, and create a forty-million dollar domestic garment manufacturing grant program aimed at revitalizing the industry (thefabricact.org). This will be the first federal bill related to fashion and textiles.

152Fashion-ology

The Evolution of Status Symbols: From Wasteful Consumption to Conscientious Consumption The idea of a status symbol exists in human societies where people are viewed or treated differently based on what they do, say, or have. In the late nineteenth century, Thorstein Veblen talked about conspicuous waste as one of the elements for a person’s conspicuous consumption, which was a status symbol (1899). If you can afford to purchase something in abundance and are able to be wasteful, it means that you are wealthy enough to waste them. Such perceptions and attitudes have transformed completely in the twenty-first century since the start of a dialogue on climate change and sustainability. The definition of a status symbol evolves over time. Wasteful consumption is considered sinful by many of those who vehemently and passionately support sustainably responsible consumption and production. Veblen’s System of Conspicuous Waste by John P. Watkins (2019) discusses that conspicuous waste refers to the allocation of resources, time, and effort that detract from the life process. Veblen rejected the idea that the system of conspicuous waste benefits society and was critical of wasteful consumption. For Veblen, the standard of living refers to that level of consumption at which people are expected to consume, and conspicuous waste refers to time and goods, both of which can be a wasteful excess and abundance. Excessive conspicuous consumption may result in conspicuous waste, and this was a strategy to increase one’s social placement and gain social reputation and popularity from the peers. Thus, anything with a social status needs to be apparent, visible, and recognizable to others since it leads to social distinctions. Furthermore, in 1951, Erving Goffman wrote in his Symbols of Class Status (1951) that status symbols refer to a set of rights and obligations that represent one’s social positions and qualifications, namely, occupational symbols, and class symbols (1951: 296). People made an effort to protect, preserve, and authenticate the real use of status symbols by legitimating inside members while making sure that the outsiders and poseurs are restricted from using them or appropriating them. A status symbol is both for the elite and aspiring elite.

Eco-Friendly and Sustainable Lifestyle as a New Status Symbol Sustainability has become the status symbol of the twenty-first century while wasteful consumption has become a shameful and embarrassing quality of one’s lifestyle. Paul Blumberg, in his The Decline and Fall of the Status Symbol: Some Thoughts on Status in a Post-Industrial Society (1974), had predicted over four

Ecological and Social Sustainability in Fashion

153

decades ago that material things will lose their significance. One characteristic of so-called postindustrial societies is the decline of material scarcity. Although inequalities of wealth and income persist in American society, since the Second World War there has been a secular decline in poverty and an increase in material abundance. If this continues, it would ultimately destroy the customary status symbols of American society, because for such symbols to be operative, they must be scarce to be desirable (Blumberg 1974). Paradoxically, as abundance increases, the social importance of material things may diminish; thus, as American society becomes more materialistic, being less materialistic becomes a desirable quality. Besides affluence, other developments are undermining the strength of conventional status symbols, such as social-class passing, status disguises, and the environmental movement. The usefulness of the concept of status itself in an urban setting must be called into question, as well as the socalled trickle effect in fashion. Blumberg argues that the concept and nature of a status symbol will never be abolished. Values are not static, and they transform over time. So do status symbols. Wasteful consumption is no longer a status symbol but an embarrassment, and a lifestyle that consciously supports sustainable brands and discourages overconsumption is the status symbol of the twenty-first century. Is it a status symbol for those who live in the modern Western world, or is it a universal status symbol shared by the world? In an interview with the Africa Renewal magazine (2012), Kumi Naidoo, the head of Greenpeace, a global charity organization, said: “When I was young, growing up in Durban, South Africa, there was a negative attitude towards the environmental movement. It was perceived as a ‘white people’ movement, for rich people who cared more about the animals and trees than they did about black people.” This is a poignant and thoughtprovoking comment that requires us to contemplate further. Has sustainability become a marketing rhetoric in Western capitalism? Is it a product of Western ideology and Western ethos? Can people in developing nations afford to be concerned about sustainability when they have to worry about their daily food and shelter? Is it an ideology that is forced upon by the former colonizers?

Conclusion With the UN’s seventeen SDGs, the fashion and textile industries are paying very close attention to the issues of climate change and sustainability, which are their major concerns since it is known as one of the most polluting industries that could destroy the earth. Brands, companies, and designers are making every effort to make products that are ecologically sustainable by inventing animal-free materials and using plants and vegetables. Their concerns for social sustainability are also growing, and they are watching the labor conditions of garment factory

154Fashion-ology

workers that sew clothes in relation to human rights issues. There are national, regional, and local efforts to create a healthy and greener society for people and the planet. With a growing interest in sustainability, it has become a new status symbol and rhetoric of the twenty-first century.

Guide to Further Reading Burns, Leslie Davis (2019), Sustainability and Social Change in Fashion, New York: Fairchild Books. Gardetti, Miguel Angel, and Rosa Patricia Larios-Francia (eds.) (2021), Sustainable Fashion and Textiles in Latin America, New York: Springer. Henninger, Claudia L., and Navdeep K. Athwal (eds.) (2022), Sustainable Luxury: An International Perspective, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Hur, Eunsuk, and Tom Cassidy (2019) “Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Sustainable Fashion Design: Challenges and Opportunities for Implementing Sustainability in Fashion,” International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 12:2, 208–17, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2019.1572789. Joy, Annamma, John F. Sherry Jr, Alladi Venkatesh, Jeff Wang, and Ricky Chan (2012), “Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands,” Fashion Theory, 16:3, 273–95, DOI: 10.2752/175174112X13340749707123. Karim, Lamia (2022), Castoffs of Capital: Love and Work among Garment Workers in Bangaldesh, St. Paul: University of Minnesota Press. Karpova, Elena E., Kelly L. Reddy-Best, and Farimah Bayat (2022), “The Fashion System’s Environmental Impact: Theorizing the Market’s Institutional Actors, Actions, Logics, and Norms,” Fashion Theory, DOI: 10.1080/1362704X.2022.2027680. Moon, Christina (2020), Labor and Creativity in New York’s Global Fashion Industry, London: Routledge. Thomas, Kedron (2020), “Cultures of Sustainability in the Fashion Industry,” Fashion Theory, 24: 5, 715–42, DOI: 10.1080/1362704X.2018.1532737. Turner, Nan (2022), Clothing Goes to War: Creativity Inspired by Scarcity in World War II, London: Intellect. Wolf, Martin J., John W. Emerson, Daniel C. Esty, Alex de Sherbinin, and Zachary A. Wendling (2022), Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.

CONCLUSION

Chapters 2 to 5 have provided an approach to fashion primarily as a system for mainstream fashion and has attempted to show how individuals and institutions within a fashion system interact with one another, how the designers, fashion professionals, and consumers play their roles, and how together they make fashion happen and sustain the culture of fashion. The effect of social structures upon participants and their influence on social structures can be observed. Fashion-ology deals not only with individuals but also with the social institutions of the fashion world and their effects on the social and economic status of many individuals when fashion is used as a symbolic strategy. Contents and styles of clothing can be discussed in their relation to structural changes in the fashion system and, thus, they cannot be taken out of the social context. The additional Chapters 6 and 7 were revised and rewritten in the third edition to explore alternative fashion systems and compare and contrast with the aforementioned conventional fashion systems found in the four leading fashion cities. The fashion system that was composed of various fashionrelated industries made-up of individuals with much training and experience has transformed into a system that is less structured, organized, and stable. It is becoming rather unclear and ambiguous what is needed and required to take part in the new system that comes out of the virtual world where clothing is no longer tangible or tactile, and it is the invention of various social media tools that have changed the fashion systems around the globe. Historically, fashion came out of Paris, and that was the center for the most aesthetic clothing. Fashion that used to be the privilege of the upper class is now enjoyed by almost everyone at every social level due to the democratization of fashion that was helped by mass production during the Industrial Revolution. And this process is even more accelerated with current technological advances. It is becoming difficult to distinguish production from consumption, and both are occurring almost simultaneously. For consumers in postmodern societies that are highly technologically advanced, anything and everything can be fashion. Any item of the clothing has the possibility of becoming a fashion. The source

156Fashion-ology

of legitimation that came from hegemonic Paris and the French establishment is, therefore, losing its power and privilege. Youth subculture forms the prime example of postmodern, both consumers and producers of, fashion. Streets are treated as fashion laboratories, and they are replacing mainstream fashion. In addition, the emergence of the metaverse as the latest fashion system is providing future opportunities and possibilities to a new fashion business model. The fashion industry professionals are aware of the power of young social media influencers who are sophisticated technology users and who can influence their peers better than adults who are supposed to be professionals in the industry. Many youths surf the internet for hours at a time, looking for new information and different and creative items and share them with their friends. The diffusion process of fashion has changed completely since the days before the internet and since the days when the major fashion shows were highly valued as a way to promote and distribute new fashion. Today, both amateurs and professionals have the capacity to spread fashion globally via the internet, and the deprofessionalization process of occupational categories in fashion allows fashion to spread globally among youths around the world. The industry can now be maintained, produced, and reproduced by nonprofessionals. Anyone who has an eye for good taste and is able to attract followers on social media and receive as many “likes” as possible can be the producer as well as the influencer of fashion. Anyone can become a fashion designer, photographer, merchandiser, or a retailer, model, editor, or journalist. The consumers, the youths in particular, are not simply consuming fashion, but are actively involved in reproducing the idea of “fashion,” and also spreading and promoting it. This deprofessionalization in the fashion industry provides more opportunities to youths and opens more doors to those who want to work in fashion-related industries. This trend in the disappearance of categories is caused by technology. We live in an age where fashion professionals are learning from the nonprofessional youth who are now attracted to the metaverse, and this process that is emanating from an alternative system of fashion continues to be underway. Fashion now takes part in the cultural globalization that is about mobility across frontiers and also the mobility of goods and commodities. It is also about the dissolution of the old structure and boundaries. In fashion, we see the increasing transnationalization of information, people, and industries, which are shifting to the digital space. We are obliged to understand the dynamics of the global economy, a complex global supply chain, and the demand for a systemic reform. The world is literally becoming borderless, and we have yet to see if there will be another new fashion system to replace the emerging alternative system that is appearing in the metaverse.

Appendix PRACTICAL GUIDE TO SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN FASHION AND DRESS

This section gives a brief and concise overview of key considerations for carrying out research in fashion and dress using sociological methods for students with no prior experience. Drawing from my book Doing Research in Fashion and Dress (Kawamura 2011, 2020), I will very briefly outline the main qualitative methods and provide suggestions on how to plan research using these methods. Fashion-related essays and articles are often stories and anecdotes that have nothing to do with the social sciences or empirical research. Therefore, many think that fashion is completely detached from the social sciences or empirical research. That is a false perception. Fashion and dress can be and need to be studied social-scientifically, that is, empirically. We find a great deal of fashion-related information in the media and online in our everyday life that is not academic, and these avenues do not provide any reliable evidence or sources. Generally speaking, data that is collected from research can be quantitative and qualitative, but in this section, we are talking about the qualitative methods since they are more popular in fashion and dress research. Most qualitative data is provided by text, and thus narrative data from interviews, questionnaires, field notes, diaries, minutes of meetings, and other records should be kept as accurately as possible. It is important to know the whole research process from the beginning to the end, and there are two things to keep in mind before one starts to engage in research: objectivity and empiricism. First, one of the guiding principles of social-scientific study, including sociology, is objectivity or personal neutrality.

158

Practical Guide to Sociological Research

Any views that are not objective are biased and often personal, both of which have no place in sociological research. Objectivity also means the ability of a researcher to articulate what the procedures are so that others can repeat the research if they so choose. But the researchers are well aware that no research is absolute or completely accurate and without flaw, and there is always some room for doubts or skepticism that can be challenged. Max Weber (1864–1920), a German social scientist, notes that people choose value-relevant research topics that they care about personally, but he cautions that once their work is underway, researchers should try their best to be value free, which means to set aside your personal and subjective values/perspectives. Second, empiricism is another important feature in social-scientific research. Only the information gathered while applying your senses is used to make decisions. Empiricism became popular in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the emergence of science, and researchers who denounce qualitative methods often equate empiricism with science. Knowledge is believed to come from experience in the form of ideas while rejecting the notion of innate ideas. Empiricism exists in opposition to theory, which is abstract and general, but both of them work hand in hand.

Research Process Topic Selection The very first step of research is topic selection. You know you want to research and write about fashion/dress, but it is an extremely broad topic. Your research focus needs to be more specific than simply “fashion/dress” since there are numerous approaches to these. Furthermore, you must be able to clearly state the theme you are interested in and raise a question/questions you wish to investigate. Our own cultural background, academic training, life experiences, and individual personal traits could have an effect not only on the topic selection but also on the research process and even on the findings. Sex, age, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, economic status, and social or occupational roles can shape the questions researchers ask. Although a concept of objectivity is strongly emphasized in the research community, it is understood that the very first stage of topic selection cannot be objective. Therefore, whichever topic is selected, it often comes from the researcher’s personal interests and experiences that are far from objective. Those of us who are fashion scholars often like fashion in various ways, whether it is because we understand the technical aspect of design, or we simply love buying new clothes. However, the researchers must be aware that the subjective interests and biases must be placed on hold at the first level of topic selection. From there, you need an objective perspective to

Practical Guide to Sociological Research

159

analyze and interpret fashion/dress, avoiding subjective feelings and emotions as much as possible.

The Literature Review Once you have your research topic, questions, or hypothesis, the next step is the literature review, which is a combination of the literature on a topic you select. In order to create an original work, you need to review various ideas and findings in the literature. You may locate and read literature in academic journals, books, and even on the internet if they are reliable. This step is required for any scholarly research paper and cannot be avoided by any means. There are two purposes to the literature review. First, you do not want to duplicate another researcher’s ideas or research unless you have a specific reason, such as confirming and checking the reliability of results. A thorough literature review helps you to learn from previous research, give recognition where credit is due, become more knowledgeable about the problem or the question you are studying, and thus avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Second, you refer to other studies so that you know what kind of research is done in the field, what other research questions were raised and answered. It shows to the readers that you have done your homework before embarking on your own study. It is considered preliminary research. It is not sufficient to simply focus on your own research. Your own research should not even begin without the literature review. It is important to understand that every researcher is making a contribution to the research community or the community of fashion/dress studies.

Choosing Appropriate Research Methods Broadly speaking, there are quantitative and qualitative methods in the social sciences. Many of the fashion/dress studies use primarily qualitative methods as they often refer to material objects and visual materials as evidence and also observe how people are dressed. We need to remember that no method is perfect, so the researchers need to be aware of the limitations of their studies and their research methodologies and also be able to assess the weaknesses and strengths of each method. Some research problems simply cannot be addressed adequately by any other method except ethnography or interviews, for example. Qualitative analysis refers to an exploration that is not based on precise measurements and mathematical claims. Fashion-dress-related investigation is frequently qualitative because research goals often involve the understanding of phenomena in ways that do not require quantification, or because the phenomena do not lend themselves to precise measurement. You cannot give any numbers to fashion phenomena.

160

Practical Guide to Sociological Research

Ethnography Ethnography is a qualitative, descriptive, nonmathematical, and naturalistic way to study human beings, their life, and their behavior, including the way they dress, in their own natural settings. It is an investigation process that social scientists, mainly qualitative sociologists and cultural anthropologists, employ in different ways to study how human beings act and why they act in the way they do. Ethnography includes participant and nonparticipant observation in addition to informal and unstructured listening and interviewing. These methods are used to acquire firsthand experience as well as accounts of phenomena as they occur in natural real-life situations, and there are no prior manipulations nor the control of variables in the methods of study that we find in experiments. The only choice the researcher has is where/which location and whom to study. The task of ethnographers is to reconstruct the characteristics of the phenomenon they observe. This method reveals research subjects’ own perspectives, which may be useful for developing new theories. But findings are usually relevant to one particular case and are not generalizable to other cases or useful for testing theories. It is a useful method in studying fashion/dress because every cultural object or artifact situates itself within a particular domain. You cannot simply study dress because it is situated within a cultural context, and the two are inseparable.

Semiotic Analysis Semiotics or semiology is the science of signs and is a system of signification. The discipline derives from the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), a Swiss linguist, who stressed that signs are arbitrary and generate their meanings only from oppositions to other arbitrary signs used in a system. Semiotics is used in fashion/dress studies as an analytical tool in treating material objects as text and in decoding the meaning of every clothing item. It does not have to be tangible clothes but written texts. According to Saussure (1916), there are two levels to the sign, the signifier and the signified, and both of them together create the sign, but the relationship between these two is arbitrary. In the case of fashion/dress studies, we often apply the sign system to objects and images. The signifier without the signified has no meaning whatsoever, and it simply exists, and the signified cannot exist without the signifier either. The signified is not a real tangible object, but it is something that the signifier refers to. Our social life is filled with signs that have these two levels, including fashion and dress that are imbued with meanings.

Surveys A survey is a research method in which subjects respond to a series of statements or questions in a questionnaire or a structured or semi-structured interview.

Practical Guide to Sociological Research

161

It is well suited to studying what cannot be studied directly by observation or participant observation, and it involves asking questions about opinions, beliefs, or behaviors. This method is most frequently used by sociologists, economists, and marketers although their research goals may differ. For instance, consumer attitudes toward the latest styles in fashion, the reasons why they prefer some styles over others, or the extent of the celebrities’ impact on popular fashion, can be measured and analyzed. Survey results are converted into quantitative data, which can be considered a separate area of expertise and can be handled by professional statisticians. A qualitative researcher in fashion and dress studies does not go into the statistical manipulation of the survey data. By understanding the whole survey research process, it becomes possible for a researcher to prepare basic reports that may interpret simple trends, to supervise survey data collection, or to become a skilled user of the survey data collected by others, a process known as secondary data analysis. Surveys also occasionally include interviews that remain qualitative and descriptive.

Object-based Study This is a method often utilized by costume historians, museum curators, and art historians rather than by sociologists, psychologists, or cultural anthropologists, since their focus is the material object or the artifact itself, such as items of dress and clothing. As far as the method of inquiry in fashion/dress studies is concerned, it is no surprise that those who closely study dress as a tangible object adopt object-based research since fashion is represented through dress and clothing, which is material. But we must point out that the object itself does not speak about its symbolic, social, or cultural meaning, so it requires other methodologies, unless we are analyzing the physical features of clothing, such as fabric texture, sewing techniques, or the silhouette of the dress in question. Today, fashion/dress scholars combine this method with other methods and take an interdisciplinary approach in their research to better understand the social or cultural context in which fashion and dress are placed.

Data Collection, Analysis, and Conclusion Once you decide which method/s to employ, you start collecting your data. Anything and everything that is collected throughout your research, such as the field notes, answers to your questionnaires, and photographs, is considered your data. Whichever method/s you choose, you are now ready to put that into practice. Make sure you keep a good record of your research, as you will use this for the next stage in analyzing the results of your collected data. Any data analysis begins with a review of the research proposal or plans with which the work began. It can take a month or two to organize and sort the

162

Practical Guide to Sociological Research

data collected. Filing papers, putting interviews in order, transcribing them, and organizing documents and artifacts are necessary processes before starting your constructive data analysis. This is an indispensable component of the research project. Many researchers wander and deviate from the original question/s set out in the beginning so you need to revisit and reconsider the question/s. In qualitative research, you do not code or elicit meaning from statistical data. As a conclusion to your study, you discuss what can be drawn from your research on fashion/dress. Were you able to prove or disprove your hypothesis that you set up in the beginning of your research? Did you find anything that you did not know before this research? Is there a theoretical or empirical contribution of your research to fashion/dress studies? At this stage, you are probably writing a report, an article, or a book, and as you draw conclusions from your study, you are raising future questions for other scholars in the same field.

Writing/Publishing After completing the process of data collection in your research, you will probably write a paper or a report based on your research project. Writing is a skilled craft, and that craft can be improved by writing, editing, and rewriting several times. Your paper should include a title, an abstract, an introduction, a literature review, research design and methodology, findings and results/analysis, and lastly, discussions/your conclusion. References, your bibliography, and notes are placed at the end. While a style of writing depends on your readers, clear and concise writing and avoiding all unnecessary jargon from any particular social-scientific discipline are the best tactics. It is not necessary to use difficult vocabulary. Your paper has to be readable and comprehensible. It is best if you refer to some basic guidelines for writing formal academic papers or reports. After completing your paper, it can be disseminated to appropriate audiences so that you can get feedback, which may be useful for your future research.

NOTES

Chapter 1 1 Institution is the term widely used to describe social practices that are regularly and continuously repeated, are sanctioned and maintained by social norms, and have a major significance in the social structure. The term refers to established patterns of behavior and is regarded as a general unit that incorporates a plurality of roles. Five types of major institution are conventionally identified: (1) economic, (2) political, (3) stratification, (4) familial and marital, and (5) cultural, concerned with religious, scientific, and artistic activities. Institutionalization is the process whereby social practices become sufficiently regular and continuous to be described as institutions. The notion indicates that changes in social practices both modify existing institutions and create new forms (Eisenstadt 1968: 409). 2 Sociological discourse and empirical studies of fashion will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2. 3 Translation: The Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Fashion. 4 Craik (1994); Finkelstein (1996); Gaines and Herzog (1990); Hollander (1994); Kunzle (1982). 5 This will be elaborated in Chapter 6 of this book. 6 The term “false consciousness” is used by Marxists to describe the situation where the proletariat fails to perceive what they believe to be the “true” nature of their interests and does not develop a revolutionary class consciousness. 7 For women’s styles in the 1920s and 1930s, see Baudot (1999), De Marly (1980a), Deslandres and Müller (1986), Grumbach (1993), and Laver (1969 [1995]).

Chapter 3 1 The prototype of the fashion trade organization is found in Paris. It is called La Fédération de la Couture, du Prêt-à-Porter des Couturiers et des Créateurs de Mode (translated as The French Federation of Couture and Ready-to-Wear for Couturiers and Creators of Fashion). 2 Alison Lurie is a Pulitzer Prize–winning novelist whose book The Language of Clothes (1981) has been widely quoted by fashion writers. 3 The details are in Yuniya Kawamura (2004).

164Notes

Chapter 4 1 Max Weber describes three types of authority: traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. Charismatic authority first came to prominence in Weber’s analysis of domination. Contrasted with legal-rational authority, charismatic authority is the authority vested in a leader by disciples and followers with the belief that the leader’s claim to power flows from extraordinary personal gifts. With the death of the leader, the disciples either disband or convert charismatic beliefs and practices into traditional or legal arrangements. Charismatic authority is, therefore, unstable and temporary (Weber 1947). 2 Empire style dresses have a raised waistline with a horizontal seam below the bustline, and they have a slender silhouette. 3 The Belle Époque is a period of high artistic or cultural development, especially in France, at the beginning of the twentieth century. 4 A similar phenomenon can be found among Japanese designers in Paris (Kawamura 2004). Several designers who had worked with or under Issey Miyake, Yohji Yamamoto, Rei Kawakubo, and Tokio Kumagai, such as Atsuro Tayama, Gomme, Junya Watanabe, and Yoshiki Hishinuma, have now set up their own brands. There is an informal network among the Japanese designers in Paris.

Chapter 5 1 The term “gatekeeper” or “gatekeeping” has been applied in relation to judgments about admitting a person or works into a cultural field (Peterson 1994). Gatekeeping is a way in which affirmations, reinterpretations, and rejections shape individual works and whole careers (Powell 1978). 2 Until 1850, the dolls were most often executed in wax, wood, or cloth. After 1850, papíer-mâché was used, allowing for more detail in head styles. 3 Toile is a mock-up of a garment made out of plain and simple twill-weave cotton or linen fabric.

REFERENCES

Africa Renewal (2012), “We Need a Sustainable Path for Our Future,” interview with Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International. https://www.un.org/ africa​rene​wal/web-featu​res/%E2%80%98we-need-sust​aina​ble-path-our-fut​ ure%E2%80%99. Anspach, Karlyne (1967), The Why of Fashion, Ames: Iowa State University Press. Aspers, Patrik (2001), Markets in Fashion: A Phenomenological Approach, Stockholm: City University Press. Back, Kurt W. (1985), “Modernism and Fashion: A Social Psychological Interpretation,” in Michael R. Solomon (ed.), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 398–407. Balzac, Honoré de (1830), Traité de la vie élégante, Paris: Bibliopoli. Barnard, Malcolm (2012), Fashion as Communication, 2nd ed., London: Routledge. Barnhart, Robert K. (1988), The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, New York: H. W. Wilson. Barthes, Roland (1964), Elements of Semiology, translated by A. Lavers and C. Smith, New York: Hill and Wang. Barthes, Roland (1967), The Fashion System, translated by M. Ward and R. Howard, New York: Hill and Wang. Bartlett, Djurdja, Shaun Cole, and Agnès Rocamora (eds.) (2013), Fashion Media: Past and Present, London: Bloomsbury. Bastide, Roger (1997), Art et Société, Paris: L’Harmattan. Baudelaire, Charles (1964), The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays, translated by J. Mayne, London: Phaidon Press. Baudot, Francois (1999), Fashion: The Twentieth Century, New York: Universe. Baudrillard, Jean (1981), For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, translated by Charles Levin, St Louis, MO: Telos Press. Baudrillard, Jean (1976 [1993]), Symbolic Exchange and Death, translated by E. Hamilton Grant, London: Sage Publications. Becker, Howard S. (1982), Art Worlds, Berkeley: University of California Press. Bédat, Maxine (2021), Unraveled: The Life and Death of a Garment, London: Portfolio. Bell, Quentin (1947 [1976]), On Human Finery, London: Hogarth Press. Benedict, Ruth (1931), “Dress,” in Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Volume 5, London: Macmillan, 235–7. Bennett, Andy (2006), “Punk’s Not Dead: The Continuing Significance of Punk Rock for an Older Generation of Fans,” Sociology, 40:2, 219–35. Bennett, Andy, and Paul Hodkinson (eds.) (2012), Ageing and Youth Cultures: Music, Style and Identity, London: Berg.

166References

Bennett, Andy, and Keith Kahn-Harris (2004), After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Bennett, Andy, and Richard A. Peterson (2004), Music Scenes: Local, Translocal, and Virtual, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Bertin, Célia (1956), Haute couture: terre inconnue, Paris: Hachette. Best, Kate Nelson (2017), The History of Fashion Journalism, London: Bloomsbury. Blumer, Herbert (1969a), “Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collective Selection,” Sociological Quarterly, 10:3: 275–91. Blumer, Herbert (1969b), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, PrenticeHall, NJ: Englewoods Cliffs. Blumberg, Paul (1974), “The Decline and Fall of the Status Symbol: Some Thoughts on Status in a Post-Industrial Society,” Social Problems, 21:4, 480–98. Bolton, Andrew (2013), “Introduction,” in Andrew Bolton (ed.), PUNK: Chaos to Couture, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 13–17. Bolton, Andrew, and Nicholas Alan Cope (2016), Manus x Machina: Fashion in an Age of Technology, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Boucher, François (1967 [1987]), 20,000 Years of Fashion, New York: H. N. Abrams. Bourdieu, Pierre (1980), “Haute couture et haute culture,” in Pierre Bourdieu (ed.), Questions de Sociologies, Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 196–206. Bourdieu, Pierre (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, translated by R. Nice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Delsaut, Yvette (1975), “Le couturier et sa griffe,” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 1 (January): 7–36. Bradford, Julie (2014), Fashion Journalism, London: Bloomsbury. Brake, Michael (1980), The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures: Sex and Drugs and Roc ‘n’ Rolls, London: Routledge. Braudel, Ferdinand (1981), The Structures of Everyday Life, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Brenninkmeyer, Ingrid (1963), The Sociology of Fashion, Koln-Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Breward, Christopher (1995), The Culture of Fashion, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Breward, Christopher (2004), Fashioning London: Clothing and the Modern Metropolis, London: Bloomsbury. Breward, Christopher, and Caroline Evans (2005), Fashion and Modernity, London: Berg. Breward, Christopher, and David Gilbert (eds.) (2006), World’s Fashion Cities, London: Bloomsbury. Brewer, John, and Roy Porter (eds.) (1993), Consumption and the World of Goods, London: Routledge. Bruzzi, Stella, and Pamela Church-Gibson (eds.) (2013), Fashion Cultures Revisited: Theories, Explorations and Analysis, London: Routledge. Brownmiller, Susan (1984), Femininity, New York: Simon & Schuster. Burke, Peter (1993), “Res et Verba: Conspicuous Consumption in The Early Modern World,” in John Brewer and Roy Porter (eds.), Consumption and the World of Goods, London: Routledge, 148–61. Burns, Leslie Davis, Kathy K. Mullet, and Nancy O. Bryant (2011), Designing, Manufacturing and Marketing, New York: Fairchild Books. Butler, Judith (1990), Gender Trouble, New York: Routledge.

References

167

Cannon, Aubrey (1998), “The Cultural and Historical Contexts of Fashion,” in Sandra Niessen and Anne Bryden (eds.), Consuming Fashion: Adorning the Transnational Body, Oxford: Berg, 23–38. Carlyle, Thomas (1831), Sartor Resartus, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clark, Dylon (2003), “The Death and Life of Punk: the Last Subculture,” in David Muggleton and Rupert Weinzierl (eds.), The Post-Subcultures Readers, London: Berg, 223–36. Clark, Terry N. (ed.) (1969), Gabriel Tarde: On Communication and Social Influence, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Coffin, Judith (1996), The Politics of Women’s Work: The Paris Garment Trades 1750– 1915, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Coser, Lewis (1982), Books: The Culture and Commerce of Publishing, New York: Basic Books. Craik, Jennifer (1994), The Face of Fashion, London: Routledge. Craig, Jennifer (2009), Fashion: The Key Concepts, London: Bloomsbury. Crane, Diana (1987), The Transformation of the Avant-Garde: The New York Art World 1940–1985, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Crane, Diana (1992), “High Culture versus Popular Culture Revisited,” in Michèle Lamont and Marcel Fournier (eds.), Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 58–73. Crane, Diana (1993), “Fashion Design as an Occupation,” Current Research on Occupations and Professions, 8: 55–73. Crane, Diana (1994), “Introduction: The Challenge of the Sociology of Culture to Sociology as a Discipline,” in Diana Crane (ed.), The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, Oxford: Blackwell, 1–20. Crane, Diana (1997a), “Globalization, Organizational Size, and Innovation in the French Luxury Fashion Industry: Production of Culture Theory Revisited,” Poetics, 24, 393– 414. Crane, Diana (1997b), “Postmodernism and the Avant-Garde: Stylistic Change in Fashion Design,” Modernism/modernity, 4, 123–40. Crane, Diana (1999), “Diffusion Models and Fashion: A Reassessment, in the Social Diffusion of Ideas and Things,” Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 566 (November), 13–24. Crane, Diana (2000), Fashion and Its Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Crewe, Louise (2008), “Ugly Beautiful? Counting the Cost of the Global Fashion Industry,” Geography, 93:1, 25–33. Crewe, Louise (2017), The Geographies of Fashion: Consumption, Space and Values, London: Bloomsbury. Crowston, Clare Haru (2001), Fabricating Women: The Seamstresses of Old Regime France, 1675–1791, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Dalby, Liza (1993), Kimono: Fashioning Culture, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Davenport, Millia (1952), A History of Costume, London: Thames and Hudson. Davis, Fred (1992), Fashion, Culture, and Identity, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. De la Haye, Amy, and Shelley Tobin (eds.) (1994), Chanel: The Couturière at Work, Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press. De Marly, Diana (1980a), The History of Haute Couture: 1850–1950, New York: Holmes and Meier.

168References

De Marly, Diana (1980b), Worth: Father of Haute Couture, New York: Holmes and Meier. De Marly, Diana (1983), La mode pour la vie, Paris: Editions Autrement. De Marly, Diana (1987), Louis XIV & Versailles, New York: Holmes and Meier. De Marly, Diana (1990), Christian Dior, New York: Holmes and Meier. Delbourg-Delphis, Marylène (1981), Le chic et le look, Paris: Hachette. Delpierre, Madeleine (1997), Dress in France in the Eighteenth Century, translated by C. Beamish, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Derrida, Jacques (1972), Margins of Philosophy, translated by David B. Allison and Leonard Lawlor, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Derrida, Jacques (1973), Speech and Phenomena, translated by David B. Allison and Leonard Lawlor, Paris; Presses Universitaires de France. Deslandres, Yvonne, and Florence Müller (1986), Histoire de la mode au XXe siècle, Paris: Somology. Dhoest, Alexander, Steven Malliet, Jacques Haers, and Barbara Segaert (eds.) (2015), The Borders of Subculture: Resistance and the Mainstream, London: Routledge. Dickie, George (1975), Art and Aesthetics: An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Diehl, Mary Ellen (1976), How to Produce a Fashion Show, New York: Fairchild Publications. DiMaggio, Paul (1992), “Cultural Entrepreneurship in 19th Century Boston,” in Michèle Lamont and Marcel Fournier (eds.), Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 33–50. DiMaggio, Paul, and Michael Useem (1978), “Cultural Democracy in a Period of Cultural Expansion: The Social Composition of Arts Audiences in the United States,” Social Problems, 26, 2, 179–97. Dimant, Elyssa (2010), Minimalism and Fashion: Reduction in the Postmodern Era, New York: Harper Design. Douglas, Mary, and Baron Isherwood (1978), The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption, London: Routledge. Duncan, Hugh Dalziel (1969), Symbols and Social Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Durkheim, Emile (1897 [1951]), Suicide, translated by John Spaulding and George Simpson, New York: Free Press. Durkheim, Emile (1912 [1965]), The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, New York: Free Press. Edwards, Tim (2011), Fashion in Focus: Concepts, Practices and Politics, London: Routledge. Eicher, Joanne B. (1976), Nigerian Handcrafted Textiles, Ile-Ife: University of Ife Press. Eicher, Joanne B. (ed.) (1995), Dress and Ethnicity: Change Across Space and Time, Oxford: Berg. Eicher, Joanne Bubolz, and Ruth Barnes (1992), Dress and Gender: Making and Meaning in Cultural Contexts, Oxford: Berg. Eicher, Joanne, and Mary Ellen Roach (eds.) (1965), Dress, Adornment, and the Social Order, New York: Wiley. Eicher, Joanne, and Lidia Sciama (1998), Beads and Bead Makers: Gender, Material Culture, and Meaning, Oxford: Berg. Eicher, Joanne, and Sandra Lee Evenson (eds.) (2014), The Visible Self: Global Perspectives on Dress, Culture and Society, New York: Fairchild Books.

References

169

Eisenstadt, S. N. (1968), “Social Institutions: The Concept,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 14, 409–21. Elferen, Isabella Van, and Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock (2015), Goth Music: From Sound to Subculture, London: Routledge. Elias, Norbert (1983), Court Society, Oxford: Blackwell. English, Bonnie (2011), Japanese Fashion Designers: The Work and Influence of Issey Miyake, Yohji Yamamoto and Rei Kawakubo, London: Bloomsbury. English, Bonnie (2013), A Cultural History of Fashion in the 20th and 21st Centuries: From Catwalk to Sidewalk, London: Bloomsbury. Entwistle, Joanne (2000), The Fashioned Body: Fashion, Dress and Modern Social Theory, Cambridge: Polity. Entwistle, Joanne, and Elizabeth Wilson (2001), Body Dressing, Oxford: Berg. Fine, Ben, and Ellen Leopold (2002), The World of Consumption: The Material and Cultural Revisited, London: Routledge. Finkelstein, Joanne (1996), After a Fashion, Carlton, Australia: Melbourne University Press. Flugel, J. C. (1930), The Psychology of Clothes, London: Hogarth. Foucault, Michel (1977), Discipline and Punish, translated by Alan Sheridan, NY: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel (1978), The History of Sexuality, translated by Robert Hurley, NY: Vintage Books. Fraser, W. (1981), The Coming of the Mass Market, London: Macmillan. Friedman, Milton (2015), A Theory of Consumption Function, Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books. Friedman, Vanessa (2022), “New York Could Make History with a Fashion Sustainability Act,” January 7, The New York Times. https://www.nyti​mes.com/2022/01/07/style/ new-york-fash​ion-sus​tain​abil​ity-act.html. Gaines, Jane, and Jane Herzog (eds.) (1990), Fabrications: Costume and the Female Body, London: Routledge. Gans, Herbert (1974), Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste, New York: Basic Books. Garfinkel, Stanley (1991), “The Théâtre de la Mode: Birth and Rebirth,” in Susan Train Susan, and Eugène Clarence Braun-Munk (eds.), Le théâtre de la mode, New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Garland, Madge (1962), Fashion: A Picture Guide to Its Creators and Creation, London: Penguin Books. Gasc, Nadine (1991), “Haute Couture and Fashion 1939–1946,” in Susan Train Susan, and Eugène Clarence Braun-Munk (eds.), Le Théâtre de la Mode, New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Gelder, Ken (ed.) (2005), The Subcultures Reader, London: Routledge. Gelder, Ken (ed.) (2007), Subcultures: Cultural Histories and Social Practice, London: Routledge. Gerth, H. H., and C. Wright Mills (1970), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibson, Pamela Church (2012), Fashion and Celebrity Culture, London: Bloomsbury. Giddens, Anthony (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity. Goblot, Edmond (1925 [1967]), La barrière et le niveau, Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan.

170References

Godard de Donville, Louise (1978), Signification de la mode sous Louis XIII, AixenProvence, France: Edisud. Godart, Frederic (2014), “The Power Structure of the Fashion Industry: Fashion Capitals, Globalization and Creativity,” International Journal of Fashion Studies, 1:1, 39–55. Goffman, Erving (1951), “Symbols of Class Status,” British Journal of Sociology, 2:4, 294–304. Goffman, Erving (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Anchor Books. Gramsci, Antonio (1975), Antonio Gramsci: Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Derek Bothman (ed.), London: Laurence and Wishart. Green, Nancy (1997), Ready-to-Wear and Ready-to-Work: A Century of Industry and Immigrants in Paris and New York, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Griswold, Wendy (2000), Bearing Witness: Readers, Writers, and the Novel in Nigeria, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Grumbach, Didier (1993), Histoires de la mode, Paris: Editions du Seuil. Haenfler, Ross (2012), Goths, Gamers and Grrrls, London: Oxford University Press. Haenfler, Ross (2014), Subcultures: The Basics, London: Routledge. Hall, Richard H. (1999), Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hall, Stuart, and Thomas Jefferson (eds.) (1976), Resistance through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain, London: Hutchinson. Hanser, Arnold (1968), The Social History of Art2, London: Routledge. Harris, Anita (2007), New Wave Cultures: Feminism, Subcultures, Activism, London: Routledge. Hebdige, Dick (1979), Subculture: The Meaning of Style, London: Methuen. Hebdige, Dick (1988), Hiding in the Light: On Images and Things, London: Routledge. Heim, Hilde, Alice Payne, and Tiziana Ferrero-Regis (2020), “Independent Fashion Designers in the Elusive Fashion City,” Urban Studies, 58:10, 2004–22. Hénin, Janine (1990), Paris Haute Couture, Paris: Editions Philippe Olivier. Hirsch, Paul (1972), “Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems,” American Journal of Sociology, 77 (January): 639–59. Hodkinson, Paul (2002), Goth: Identity, Styles and Subculture, Oxford: Berg. Holbrook, Morris B., and Glenn Dixon (1985), “Mapping the Market for Fashion, Complementarity in Consumer Preferences,” in Michael R. Solomon (ed.), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington, MA: Heath and Company, 109–26. Hollander, Anne (1980), Seeing through Clothes, Berkeley: University of California Press. Hollander, Anne (1994), Sex and Suits, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Horn, Marilyn and Lois Gurel (1975), The Second Skin, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Hunt, Alan (1996), Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Hunt, Lynn (1984), Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution, Berkeley: University of California Press. Hurlock, Elizabeth B. (1929), The Psychology of Dress, New York: Ronald Press. Irigaray, Luce (1974), Speculum of the Other Woman, translated by Gillian C. Gill, New York: Cornell University Press. Jenss, Heike (ed.) (2016), Fashion Studies: Research Methods, Sites, and Practices, London: Bloomsbury. Jenss, Heike (2016), Fashioning Memory: Vintage Style and Youth Culture, London: Bloomsbury.

References

171

Karaminas, Vicki (2009), “Part IV Subculture: Introduction,” in Peter McNeil and Vicki Karaminas (eds.), The Men’s Fashion Readers, London: Berg, 347–51. Katz, Elihu (1999), “Theorizing Diffusion: Tarde and Sorokin Revisited,” Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 566 (November), 144–55. Katz, Elihu, and Paul Lazarsfeld (1955), Personal Influence, New York: Free Press. Katz, Elihu, Martin Levin, and Herbert Hamilton (1963), “Traditions of Research on the Diffusion of Innovation,” American Sociological Review, 28, 237–52. Kawamura, Yuniya (2004), The Japanese Revolution in Paris Fashion, Oxford: Berg. Kawamura, Yuniya (2011), Doing Research in Fashion and Dress: An Introduction to Qualitative Methods, London: Bloomsbury. Kawamura, Yuniya (2012), Fashioning Japanese Subcultures, London: Bloomsbury. Kawamura, Yuniya (2016), Sneakers: Fashion, Gender and Identity, London: Bloomsbury. Kawamura, Yuniya (2018), Fashion-ology: An Introduction to Fashion Studies, revised/2nd ed., London: Bloomsbury. Kawamyra, Yuniya (2020), Doing Research in Fashion and Dress: An Introduction to Qualitative Methods, revised/2nd ed., London: Bloomsbury. Kawamura, Yuniya (2022), Cultural Appropriation in Fashion and Entertainment, London: Bloomsbury. Koenig, Rene (1973), The Restless Image: A Sociology of Fashion, translated by F. Bradley, London: George Allen & Unwin. Kopf-Horn, Marilyn J. (1968), The Second Skin, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kroeber, A. L. (1919), On the Principle of Order in Civilization as Exemplified by Changes in Fashion, New York: Hill and Wang. Kunzle, David (1982), Fashion and Fetishism: A Social History of the Corset, Tight-Lacing and Other Forms of Body-Sculpture in the West, Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. Lang, Kurt, and Gladys Lang (1961), Fashion: Identification and Differentiation in the Mass Society in Collective Dynamics, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Langner, Lawrence (1959), The Importance of Wearing Clothes, New York: Hastings House. Lantz, Jenny (2016), The Trendmakers: Behind the Scenes of the Global Fashion Industry, London: Bloomsbury. Laver, James (1950), Dress, London: Murray. Laver, James (1969), Modesty in Dress, London: Heinemann. Laver, James (1969 [1995]), Concise History of Costume and Fashion, New York: H. N. Brams. Le Bon, Gustave (1895), The Crowd, London: T. Fischer Unwin. Le Bourhis, Katell (1991), “American on Its Own: The Fashion Context of the Theatre de la Mode in New York,” in Susan Train and Eugène Clarence Braun-Munk (eds.), Le théâtre de la mode, New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 33–42. Lehnert, Gertrud, and Gabriele Mentges (2013), Fusion Fashion: Culture beyond Orientalism and Occidentalism, Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH. Leopold, Ellen (1993), “The Manufacture of the Fashion System,” in Juliet Ash and Elizabeth Wilson (eds.), Chic Thrills: A Fashion Reader, Berkeley: University of California Press, 66–78. Leslie, Deborah, and Shauna Brail (2011), “The Productive Role of Quality Place: A Case Study of Fashion Designers in Toronto,” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 43:12, 2900–17. Lewis, Reina (2013), Modest Fashion: Styling Bodies, Mediating Faith, London: I.B. Tauris.

172References

Lewis, Tasha L. and Anne Pringle (2015), “Local Buttons: Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainability in Haiti,” Journal of Contemporary African Art, 37, 114–25. Lipovetsky, Gilles (1994), The Empire of Fashion, translated by Catherine Porter, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lopes, Paul, and Mary Durfee (1999) “The Social Diffusion of Ideas and Things,” Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 566 (November), 8–12. Lunning, French (2012), Fetish Style, London: Bloomsbury. Lurie, Alison (1981), The Language of Clothes, London: Bloomsbury. Luvaas, Brent (2016), Street Style: An Ethnography of Fashion Blogging, London: Bloomsbury. Mallarmé, Stephané (1933), La Dernière Mode, New York: Institute of French Studies. McCracken, Grant D. (1985), “The Trickle-Down Theory Rehabilitated,” in Michael M. Solomon (ed.), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath Lexington Books, 39–54. McCracken, Grant D. (1987) “Clothing as Language: An Object Lesson in the Study of the Expressive Properties of Material Culture,” in Barrie Reynolds and Margaret A. Scott (eds.), Material Anthropology: Contemporary Approaches to Material Culture, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 71–84. McCracken, Grant D. (1988), Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. McDowell, Colin (1997), Forties Fashion and the New Look, London: Bloomsbury. McKendrick, Neil (1982), A Consumer Society: The Commercialization of EighteenthCentury England, London: Hutchinson. McKendrick, Neil, John Brewer, and J. H. Plumb (1982), The Birth of a Consumer Society, London: Europa. McKinsey Report (2017), The State of Fashion.https://www.mckin​sey.com/~/media/ McKin​sey/Ind​ustr​ies/Ret​ail/Our%20I​nsig​hts/The%20st​ate%20of%20fash​ion/ The-state-of-fash​ion-2017-McK-BoF-rep​ort.pdf McKinsey Report (2022), The State of Fashion 2023: Holding onto Growth as Global Clouds Gather. https://www.mckin​sey.com/ind​ustr​ies/ret​ail/our-insig​hts/state-offash​ion McNeil, Peter, and Giorgio Riello (2016), Luxury: A Rich History, London: University Oxford Press. McRobbie, Angela (ed.) (1991), Feminism and Youth Culture: From “Jackie” To “Just Seventeen,” London: Macmillan. McRobbie, Angela, and Jennifer Garber (1991), “Girls and Subcultures,” in Angela McRobbie (ed.), Feminism and Youth Culture: From “Jackie” To “Just Seventeen,” London: Macmillan. Mendes, Valerie, and Amy de la Haye (1999), 20th Century Fashion, London: Thames & Hudson. Menkes, Suzy (1996), “Couture: Some Like It Haute, but Others Are Going Demi,” International Herald Tribune, November 26: 11. Merton, Robert (1946), Mass Persuasion, New York: Harper. Merton, Robert (1957), Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: Free Press. Milbank, Caroline Rennolds (1985), Couture: Les grands Créateurs, Paris: Robert Laffont. Miller, Daniel (1987), Material Culture and Mass Consumption, Oxford: Blackwell. Miller, Janice (2012), Fashion and Music, London: Bloomsbury.

References

173

Miller, Michael B. (1981), The Bon Marché: Bourgeois Culture and the Department Store 1869–1920, London: George Allen and Unwin. Millerson, Jon S. (1985), “Psychosocial Strategies for Fashion Advertising,” in Michael R. Solomon (ed.), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Monnier, Gérard (1995), L’art et ses institutions en France: De la Révolution a nos jours, Paris: Editions Galliard. Morgan, Andrew (2015), The True Cost, documentary. Moulin, Raymonde (1987), The French Art Market: A Sociological View, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Muggleton, David, and Rupert Weinzierl (2003), The Post-subcultures Reader, London: Berg. Mukerji, Chandra (1983), From Graven Images, New York: Columbia University Press. Mukerji, Chandra (1997), Territorial Ambitions and the Gardens of Versailles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, James A. H. (ed.) (1901), A New Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nast, Conde (2013), Vogue: The Editor’s Eye, New York: Harry N. Abrams. Negrin, Llewellyn (2008), Appearance and Identity: Fashioning the Body in Postmodernity, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Negus, Keith (1997), “The Production of Culture,” in Paul du Gay (ed.), Production of Culture/Culture of Productions, London: Sage Publications, 177–234. Niessen, Sandra, and Anne Brydon (1998) “Introduction: Adorning the Body,” in Sandra Niessen and Anne Brydon (eds.), Consuming Fashion: Adorning the Transnational Body, Oxford: Berg, ix–xvii. Nystrom, Paul H. (1928), Economics of Fashion, New York: Ronald Press Company. O’Brien, Karen, Elin Selboe, and Bronwyn M. Hayward (2018), “Exploring Youth Activism on Climate Change: Dutiful, Disruptive, and Dangerous Dissent,” Ecology and Society, 23:3, 42, 1–14. The Oxford Thesaurus American Edition (1992), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parsons, Talcott (1968), The Structure of Social Action, New York: Free Press. Paton, Elizabeth (2021), “Fashion Retailers Face Inquiry Over Suspected Ties to Forced Labor in China,” The New York Times, July 2. https://www.nyti​mes.com/2021/07/02/ fash​ion/xinji​ang-for​ced-labor-Zara-Uni​qlo-Sketch​ers.html?searc​hRes​ultP​osit​ion=4. Pedroni, Marco (2013), From Production to Consumption: The Cultural Industry of Fashion, Oxfordshire: Inter-disciplinary.net. Perrot, Philippe (1994), Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing in the Nineteenth Century, translated by Richard Bienvenu, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Peterson, Richard A. (ed.) (1976), The Production of Culture, London: Sage Publications. Peterson, Richard A. (1978), “The Production of Cultural Change: The Case of Contemporary Country Music,” Social Research, 45:2, 292–314. Peterson, Richard A. (1994), “Culture Studies through the Production Perspective: Progress and Prospects,” in Diana Crane (ed.), The Sociology of Culture, Oxford: Blackwell, 163–90. Peterson, Richard A. (1997), Creating Country Music: Fabricating Authenticity, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Peterson, Richard, and David A. Berger (1975), “Cycles in Symbol Production: The Case of Popular Music,” American Sociological Review, 40, 158–73. Polhemus, Ted (1994), Street Style, London: Thames and Hudson.

174References

Polhemus, Ted (1996), Style Surfing, London: Thames and Hudson. Polhemus, Ted, and Lynn Proctor (1978), Fashion and Antifashion: An Anthropology of Clothing and Adornment, London: Thames and Hudson. Pool, Hannah Azieb (2016), Fashion Cities Africa, London: Intellect. Posner, Harriet (2015), Marketing Fashion: Strategy, Branding and Promotion, London: Laurence King Publishing. Postmodernism-Style and Subversion, 1970–1990 Exhibition Catalogue (2011), Victoria and Albert Museum, London: V& A Publishing. Powell, Walter (1972), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Powell, Walter (1978), “Publishers’ Decision-Making: what Criteria do they Use in Deciding which Books to Publish?” Social Research, 34, 2. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1987), New York: Random House. Reilly, Andrew (2014), Key Concepts for the Fashion Industry, London: Bloomsbury. Reilly, Andrew, and Sarah Cosbey (2008), Men’s Fashion Reader, New York: Fairchild. Copenhagen Fashion Week Sustainability Action Plan (2020-2022), Reinventing Copenhagen Fashion Week.https://copenh​agen​fash​ionw​eek.com/ass​ets/ pdf/2020-2022-Act​ion-Plan.pdf. Remaury, Bruno (ed.) (1996), Dictionnaire de la mode au XXe siècle, Paris: Editions du Regard. Remaury, Bruno, and Nathalie Bailleux (1995), Mode et Vêtements, Paris: Gallimard. Ribeiro, Aileen (1988), Fashion in the French Revolution, New York: Holmes and Meier. Ribeiro, Aileen (1995), The Art of Dress: Fashion in England and France 1750 to 1820, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Roach, Mary Ellen, and Joanne B. Eicher (1973), The Visible Self: Perspectives on Dress, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Roach-Higgins, Mary Ellen (1995), “Awareness: Requisite to Fashion,” in Mary Ellen Roach-Higgins, Joanne B. Eicher, and K. P. Kim (eds.), Dress and Identity, New York: Fairchild Publications, 393–7. Roach-Higgins, Mary Ellen, and Kathleen Ehle Musa (1980), New Perspectives on the History of Western Dress, New York: NutriGuides. Rocamora, Agnès (2009), Fashioning the City: Paris, Fashion and the Media, London: I. B. Tauris. Rocamora, Agnès (2013), “How New Are New Media? The Case of Fashion Blogs,” in Djurdja Bartlett, Shaun Cole and Agnès Rocamora (eds.), Fashion Media: Past and Present, London: Bloombury, 155–64. Rocamora, Agnès (2022), “The Datafication and Quantification of Fashion: The Case of Fashion Influencers,” in Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body, and Culture, London: Taylor and Francis. Rocamora, Agnès, and Alistair O’Neill (2008), “Fashioning the Street,” in Shinkle Eugenie (ed.), Fashion as Photography, London: I.B. Tauris, 185–99. Roche, Daniel (1994), The Culture of Clothing: Dress and Fashion in the Ancient Regime, translated by Jean Birrell, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogers, Everett M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, New York: Free Press. Ross, Edward A. (1908), Social Psychology, London: Macmillan. Rossi, Ino (1983), From the Sociology of Symbols to the Sociology of Signs, New York: Columbia University Press. Rouse, Elizabeth (1989), Understanding Fashion, London: BSP Professional Books.

References

175

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1750), Discours sur les sciences et les arts, Hanover: University Press of New England for Dartmouth College. Ryan, John, and Richard A. Peterson (1982), “The Product Image: The Fate of Creativity in Country Music Songwriting,” in James S. Ettema and D. Charles Whitney (eds.), Individuals in Mass Media Organizations: Creativity and Constraint, London: Sage Publications, 11–32. Ryan, John, and William M. Wentworth (1999), Media and Society: The Production of Culture in the Mass Media, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ryan, Mary S. (1966), Clothing: A Study in Human Behavior, New York: Holt, Rinehard & Winston. Chris Baker (ed.) (2004), The SAGE Dictionary of Cultural Studies, London: Sage. Sahlins, Marshall (1976), Culture and Practical Reason, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sapir, Edward (1931), “Fashion,” in Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, volume 6, London: Macmillan, 139–44. Sargentson, Carolyn (1996), Merchants and Luxury Markets: The Marchands Merciers of Eighteenth-Century Paris, London: Victoria and Albert Museum. Saunders, Edith (1955), The Age of Worth: Couturier to the Empress Eugenie, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916), Course in General Linguistics, London: Fontana/Collins. Sennett, Richard (1976), The Fall of Public Man, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Simmel, Georg (1904 [1957]), “Fashion,” American Journal of Sociology, LXII (6 May): 541–58. Sklar, Monica (2012), Punk Style, London: Bloomsbury. Skov, Lise (1996), “Fashion Trends, Japonisme and Postmodernism,” Theory, Culture and Society, 13 August, 3: 129–51. Skov, Lise (2003), “A Japanese Globalization Experience a Hong Kong Dilemma,” in Sandra Niessen, Anne Marie Leshkowich, and Carla Jones (eds.), Re-Orienting Fashion, Oxford: Berg, 129–51. Sombart, Werner (1967), Luxury and Capitalism, translated by W. R. Ditmar, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Sorokin, Pitrim (1941), Social and Cultural Mobility, New York: Free Press. Spencer, Herbert (1896 [1966]), The Principles of Sociology, volume II, New York: D. Appleton. Sproles, George B. (1985), “Behavioral Science Theories of Fashion,” in Michael R. Solomon (ed.), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath Lexington Books, 55–70. Stone, Gregory (1954), “City Shoppers and Urban Identification: Observations on the Social Psychology of City Life,” American Journal of Sociology, 60: 36–45. Steele, Valerie (1985), Fashion and Eroticism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Steele, Valerie (1988), Paris Fashion: A Cultural History, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Steele, Valerie (1991), Women of Fashion: Twentieth-Century Designers, New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Steele, Valerie (1992), “Chanel in Context,” in Juliet Ash and Elizabeth Wilson (eds.), Chic Thrills: A Fashion Reader, Berkeley: University of California Press, 118–26. Steele, Valerie (1997), Fifty Years of Fashion: New Look to Now, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

176References

Steele, Valerie, and John S. Major (1999), China Chic: East Meets West, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sudjic, Deyan (1990), Rei Kawakubo and Comme des Garçons, New York: Rizzoli. Sumner, William Graham (1906 [1940]), Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores and Morals, Boston: Ginn. Sumner, William Graham, and Albert Gallway Keller (1927), The Science of Society, volume 3, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Szántó, András (1996), “Gallery Transformation in the New York Art World in the 1980s,” Columbia University, unpublished PhD thesis. Tarde, Gabriel (1903), The Laws of Imitation, translated by Elsie C. Parsons, New York: Henry Holt. Taylor, Lou (1992), “Paris Couture: 1940–1944,” in Juliet Ash and Elizabeth Wilson (eds), Chic Thrills: A Fashion Reader, Berkeley: University of California Press, 127–44. Taylor, Lou (2002), The Study of Dress History, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Thomas, Chantal (1999), The Wicked Queen: The Origins of the Myth of MarieAntoinette, New York: Zone Books. Thornton, Nicole (1979), “Introduction,” in Poiret, London: Academy Editions, 2–4. Titton, Monica (2013), “Styling the Street—Fashion Performance, Stardom and Neodandysim in Street Style Blogs,” in Stella Bruzzi and Pamela Church-Gibson (eds.), Fashion Cultures Revisited: Theories, Explorations and Analysis, London and New York: Routledge, 128–37. Tobin, Shelley (1994), “The Foundations of the Chanel Empire,” in Amy de la and Shelley Tobin (eds.), Chanel: The Couturière at Work, Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 5–10. Toennies, Ferdinand (1909 [1961]), Custom: An Essay on Social Codes, translated by A. F. Borenstein, New York: Free Press. Toennies, Ferdinand (1887 [1963]), Community and Society, New York: Harper and Row. Tortora, Phyllis (2015), Dress, Fashion and Technology: From Prehistory to the Present, London: Bloomsbury. Train, Susan, and Eugène Clarence Braun-Munk (eds.) (1991), Le théâtre de la mode, New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Tseelon, Efrat (1994), “Fashion and Signification in Baudrillard,” in Baudrillard: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, 119–32. Tseelon, Efrat (1995), The Masque of Femininity, London: Sage Publications. United Nations Brundtland Commission (1987), Report on The World Commission on Environment and Development “Our Common Future.” https://sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ ent.un.org/cont​ent/docume​nts/5987​our-com​mon-fut​ure.pdf. United Nations (1972), Conference Report on the Human Environment, Stockholm, June 5-16. https://dig​ital​libr​ary.un.org/rec​ord/523​249?ln=en. United Nations (2000), The Eight Millennium Development Goals, issued by the UN Department of Public Information. https://www.ndi.org/sites/defa​ult/files/Hand​ out%207%20-%20Mil​lenn​ium%20Deve​lopm​ent%20Go​als.pdf. United Nations (2015), Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/203​0age​nda. Veblen, Thorstein (1899 [1957]), The Theory of Leisure Class, London: Allen and Unwin. Veillon, Dominique (1990), La mode sous l’Occupation, Paris: Editions Payot. Vernon, G. M. (1978), Symbolic Aspects of Interaction, Washington, DC: University Press of America.

References

177

Von Boehn, Max (1932), Modes and Manners, New York: Benjamin Blom. Wagner, Travis L. (2021), “She Started Wearing Men’s Clothes and Acting More Masculine,” International Journal of Information, Diversity and Inclusion, 5:4, 21–42. Warner, Helen (2014), Fashion on Television, Identity and Celebrity Culture, London: Bloomsbury. Watkins, John P. (2019), “Veblen’s System of Conspicuous Waste,” Journal of Economic Issues, 53:4, 914–27. Weber, Max (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wentig, Rik (2008), The Evolution of a Creative Industry: The Industrial Dynamics and Spatial Evolution of Global Fashion Industry, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University Press. White, Harrison (1993), Careers and Creativity: Social Forces in the Arts, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. White, Harrison, and Cynthia White (1965 [1993]), Canvases and Careers: Institutional Change in the French Painting World, New York: John Wiley. Williams, Raymond (1981), Culture, Glasgow: Fontana. Williams, Rosalind (1982), Dream World: Mass Consumption in Late Nineteenth-Century France, Berkeley: University of California Press. Wilson, Elizabeth (1985), Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity, Berkeley: University of California Press. Wilson, Elizabeth (1994), “Fashion and Postmodernism,” in John Storey (ed.), Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 430–9. Wolf, Martin J., John W. Emerson, Daniel C. Esty, Alex de Sherbinin, and Zachary A. Wendling (2022), Environmental Performance Index, New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. Wolff, Janet (1983), Aesthetics and the Sociology of Art, London: Allen & Unwin. Wolff, Janet (1993), The Social Production of Art, New York: New York University Press. Wollstonecraft, Mary (1792), A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, London: J. Johnson. World Bank (2019), “How Much Do Our Wardrobes Cost to the Environment,” September 23.https://www.worldb​ank.org/en/news/feat​ure/2019/09/23/ costo-moda-medio-ambie​nte. Worth, Gaston (1895), La couture et la confection des vêtements de femme, Boston: Little, Brown. Worth, Jean-Philippe (1928), A Century of Fashion, translated by Ruth Scott Miller, Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Young, Agatha Brooks(1939 [1966]), Recurring Cycles of Fashion: 1760–1937, New York: Cooper Square Publishers. Zeldin, Theodore (1977), France 1848–1945, volume 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zolberg, Vera (1990), Constructing a Sociology of the Arts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zolberg, Vera, and Joni Maya Cherbo (eds.) (2000), Outsider Art: Contesting Boundaries in Contemporary Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

178

INDEX

advertisers 18, 54, 88, 91, 92, 99, 100, 104 aesthetic judgments 48, 50, 92, 96–8 alternative system 106, 114 apparel industries 63, 89, 91 appearance 2, 9, 11, 16, 26, 32, 38, 39, 40, 43, 120, 124, 125 aristocracy 5, 9, 12, 57, 65, 84 assistant designers 54, 58 avant-garde 62, 72, 73 Barnard, Malcolm 1, 3, 4, 14, 27 Barry, Madame du 93 Barthes, Roland 6, 42, 47, 51, 53, 54 Baudrillard, Jean 28 beauty 10–11, 12, 23, 84, 97–8, 102, 111, 125, 128 Becker, Howard 21, 34–7, 47, 52–3, 58, 82, 98 beliefs 1–4, 25, 47, 51, 56, 58, 74, 81, 83, 88, 96, 99, 103, 104 Bell, Quentin 5, 9, 28, 31 Bertin, Rose 76–7, 100 bloggers 109–111 Blumer, Herbert 21, 28–30, 31–2, 50, 53–4, 86 Bohan, Marc 80, 86 Boucher, François 5, 14, 57, 63, 80 Bourdieu, Pierre 30–1, 34, 61, 73, 80, 88, 97 brands 104, 110, 111, 116–17, 121, 122 Brydon, Anne 8, 9 bubble-up process 70

buyers 32, 49, 54, 66, 95, 99102, 107, 117 calico 77, 86 Cannon, Aubrey 28–30 Carlyle, Thomas 7 categorical boundaries 106–8 CCCS (the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies) 40–2 Chanel, Coco 75–6, 78–9, 115 Charles VI 100 Chicago School 40 collaborations 34, 36, 69, 99, 117, 130, 135 commercialization 86, 106–11 conspicuous consumption 9, 22–4, 49, 87, 152 consumers 5, 8, 15, 18, 24, 32, 54, 55, 61, 155, 156, 161 Craik, Jennifer 11, 28, 29, 55–6 Crane, Diana 10, 17, 29, 37, 47, 70–1, 94–6, 108, creativity 35, 51, 59, 66, 69–75, 81, 83, 114, 123 cultural capital 61 cultural goods 71, 109 cultural innovations 94, 98 cultural institutions 34, 37 cultural producer 50 data collection 161–2 Davis, Fred 6, 10, 12, 32–3, 47, 54–6 De la Haye, Amy 102, 106, 125 de Marly, Diana 76–80, 84, 101

180INDEX

de Saussure, Ferdinand 53, 160 Demi-Couture, designers 72 diffusion strategies 92, 100–103 Dior, Christian 78–80, 105, 115 dressmakers 62, 65, 75–7, 79, 100 Durkheim, Emile 49, 81 economic capital 61–2 editors 18, 39, 49, 65, 92, 95, 97–100, 102, 104, 106, 111, 114 Eicher, Joanne 13–16, 56, 58 fashion as a class distinction 21, 22, 23–5 as a concept 2, 4, 5, 27, 28, 59 feminization of 9–10 as imitation 13, 21, 22–3, 20–7, 30, 31, 55 as a manufactured cultural symbol 17, 21, 34–7 as a phenomenon 27 proponents and opponents of 3, 6–7 as social custom 25–6 fashion dolls 14, 92, 100 fashion magazines 14, 16, 17, 95, 100, 102, 110–11, 123 fashion shows 18, 32, 38, 100–102, 110, 114, 116–17, 119, 128, 131–2, 156 Finkelstein, Joanne 5, 11, 28, 48, 108 Flugel, J. C. 6, 10, 28, 30, 51 forecasters 71, 95, 107 French fashion industry 80 French Revolution 12, 57 Gurel, Lois 13–14, 92 hairdressers 60, 100 Haute Couture 60, 64, 70, 72, 80 Hebdige, Dick 39–41, 105, 124–6 Hegemony 59, 60, 61, 81, 105 Horn, Marilyn 13, 92 image 29, 36, 49, 52–4, 67 imitation 13, 21, 22–3, 79, 95, 96, 129, 159

competitive imitation 20, 70 reverential imitation 22, 26 institutional diffusion 94–5 internet 36, 63, 64, 66, 110–11, 114, 127, 130, 145, 156 Japanese designers 72, 73, 124, jewelry 10, 48, 60, 107, 129 journalists 18, 32, 49, 51, 53, 98–9, 102, 104, 106, 107, 110, 111, 117, 156 Kawakubo, Rei 72, 73, 75, 164 Kawamura, Yuniya 17, 30, 33, 38, 44, 52, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 73, 98 Kennedy, Jackie 94 Kenzo 72 kimono 58 knitting 103, 127 Koenig, Rene 6, 7, 31, 48, 55 Kroeber, A.L. 16–17 La Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Parisienne 102 Lang, Gladys 88 Lang, Kurt 88 latent functions 49 Laver, James 6, 10, 52 legitimation 64, 69, 71, 75–6, 106–8, 113 leisure class 22, 24 Leopold, Ellen 53 lifestyle 3, 31, 39, 78–9, 84, 121, 127, 128, 137, 152 Lipovetsky, Gilles 8, 12, 28, 78 London 38, 42, 52, 63, 80, 115–17, 119, 122 Louis XIV 55, 84, 93 McCracken, Grant 94, 96, 108 Madonna 94 Maintenan, Madame de 93 manifest functions 49, 69 mannequin 100, 101 marketers 29, 65, 86, 91, 92, 114, 139, 161

INDEX

Mendes, Valerie 102, 106, 125 Merton, Robert 48–9, 65, 103 micro-fashions 57 Milan 52, 54, 63, 91, 113, 115, 116, 117 milliner 100 Minagawa, Makiko 76 Miyake, Issey 72, 75–6 models 66, 77, 94, 96, 97, 100, 101 modernity 10, 26–8, 32, 42 Montespan, Madame de 93 Mukerji, Chandra 84, 86 Musa, Kathleen Ehle 54 myth 2, 50–3, 73, 74, 115 mythology 82 neophilia 6, 63 New York 35, 38, 47, 52, 54, 60, 63, 64 newness 6, 27, 63, 74, 85 Niessen, Sandra 8–9 novelty 6, 10, 27, 35, 56, 63, 85–6, 91 Paris 1, 5, 14, 17, 31, 32, 47, 49, 51–2, 54, 65–7, 71–3 patina 55–6, 85 patternmakers 58 Perrot, Philippe 5, 26 Peterson, Richard 35–6, 41, 164 photographers 18, 38, 54, 62, 65, 111, 156 Poiret, Paul 70, 75, 78, 79, 101, Polhemus, Ted 5, 42, 70 Pompadour, Madame de 93 postmodernity 27, 42, 108 public opinion 6, 96, 99 public relations 52, 101 publicists 39, 51, 54, 92, 95, 106 punk 38–41, 106–8, 115, 124–6 quantitative methods 16–17 Queen of England 100 Remaury, Bruno 3 reputation 1, 3, 49, 67, 69, 73, 90, 98, 106, 113, 152

181

Ribeiro, Aileen 8, 10 Roach-Higgins, Mary Ellen 13–16, 56, 58 Roche, Daniel 5 sample-cutters 58 sample-makers 58 sari 58 semiology 53, 54 semiotic analysis 47, 160 Simmel, Georg 9, 13, 22, 23–7, 29, 31, 70, 81, 96 social capital 61 social identity 30, 61, 109, social mobility 7, 25–8 social structure 4, 7, 9, 13, 21, 26, 28, 36, 48–9, 69 social theory 23 sociology of culture 17, 21, 33–4, 35 sociology of the arts 2, 36, 47 Spencer, Herbert 13, 22–5, 31, 70, 150 status 49, 52, 55–6, 63, 64, 66 Steele, Valerie 10, 14, 15, 52, 75, 79, 82 stitching machinery 103 structural functionalism 48 style 59, 62, 64, 70, 78, 79, 81–2, 83, 85, 89, 94–6 subcultural theories 38, 40–1 Sudjic, Deyan 75 Sumner, William Graham 13, 22, 23, 25, 54 sumptuary laws 26 symbolic capital 61, 67, 72, 73, 81 symbolic interactionism 40, 48, 50 tailors 7, 62, 63, 65, 76, 77, 79 Tarde, Gabriel 13, 22–3, 26–7, 31, 70, 96 taste 4, 7, 11, 30, 61–2, 66, 76, 78, 84–7, 91–2, 97 TikTok 110, 125–7 Tobin, Shelley 75, 79 Toennies, Ferdinand 13, 22, 24–6 trickle-across theory 39, 108–109 trickle-down theory 21, 22, 108 trickle-up theory 32, 39

182INDEX

urban sociology 40 Veblen, Thorstein 9, 13, 22, 31, 49, 70, 81, 87, 152 Vionnet, Madeleine 75–6, 79 visual materials 2, 15–16, 159 Weber, Max 12, 74, 158 White, Cynthia 21, 37, 47, 56 White, Harrison 21, 37, 47, 56 wholesalers 52, 54

William, Rosalind 84, 85–6, 89 Wilson, Elizabeth 11, 14, 27 Wolff, Janet 1, 34, 37, 50, 74, 82 Wollstonecraft, Mary 10–11 Worth, Charles Frederick 62, 64, 70, 76, 77–8, 80, 101, 102–3 Yamamoto, Yohji 72, 164 Young, Agatha Brooks 16, 17 Zolberg, Vera 21, 34, 47, 75, 97